Hi,
On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 03:47:30PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From reading all the emails it seems that the /48 approach as the
> *minimum* allocation is the way the IETF would like IPv6 deployment to
> proceed. However, as it has been demonstrated, the /35 allocations today
> would only allow for 8,192 /48 per subTLA, and this is assuming that the
> subTLA holder hasn't split up the NLA block so they can allocate to other
> providers, in which case this figure could be as small as 256 or lower!!!!
>
> I see this as the reason why ISPs consider /48 for a home customer
> as too large, and hence the sliding-window & /56 discussion at the last RIPE
> meeting.
Exactly this was the reason from our side for welcoming the /48, /56, /64
suggestion: having more "elbow space" in the /35 allocated to us, being
able to do reasobale NLA structuring (to our resellers, and to *their*
resellers).
regards,
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
SpaceNet GmbH Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
