> Ah, thanks for the pointer. This does clarify the recommendation a bit.
Good!!
> The paper did not discuss the effect of allocating /48's and /35's now
> (and probably /29..36 in the future) on the routing table sizes; was this
> deemed a non-issue?
draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-00.txt focusses pretty much
only on the argument for making /48 the normal allocation to end sites.
> You can't fit _that_ many /48's in a /35 that are being allocated now.
> That might cause aggregation fragmentation as more address space is being
> asked from RIR's.
This concern is being raised by others, and the registry communities
have recently begun discussing whether the /35 boundary should be
changed. See the "Next Steps" slide in the presentation you cited
earlier
(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ipv6develop/sld017.html),
for example.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
