--On Thursday, January 31, 2002 03:09:08 PM +0700 Robert Elz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 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,
If this will happen, which organisation would this be? Compared with
current IPv4 /48 with the 16 bits for SLA is similar to a IPv4 Class
A network.
Which organisation (not ISPs) uses more than one Class A network
*full* at the moment internally (means > 65k subnets)?
People always ask for as much as address space as possible, but in
IPv4 world it was more because of the number of clients and less the
number of possible subnetworks (thinking in Class A space).
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
