We need to do anything we can to facilitate aggregation, since
(assuming there are enough addresses) this will be the thing that
most hinders scalability. I don't know where we stand today with
respect to being able to handle all the routes in the default free
zone, but we don't want to make things worse.
Since there appear to be enough addresses, either the current
option (/48 only) or an option that allows either /48 or /56 seem
like the best choices. Having an movable boundary anywhere between
/48 and /64 will definitely hurt aggregation and site mobility.
That said, with the current option, having 64K subnets for the
network in my car seems like a bit of overkill. This is a
case that seems to stretch the definition of a "site" in the
current addressing architecture...
chuck
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
