Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 11:35:51 -0800
From: "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I concur that it would not be wise to assume anything, but saving IPv6
| addresses does not strike me as good idea if it brings more complexity
| and does not bring anything else than allocation efficiency.
I probably wouldn't either, though we don't want to totally forget
allocation efficiency - the way we make sure that IPv6 never runs out
is to always make sure we justify every allocation (which doesn't mean
organisations need to justify their need for a /48 - but I'd certainly be
making any organisation asking for a 2nd one (in the same aggregatable
block, I'm not talking about multi-connecting here) justify their use
of the first /48 they were allocated before giving away another.
But not adding any explicit length limits doesn't add complexity, it
reduces it.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
