> Tim Chowm wrote: > The question is, if a service provider wants to follow the recommendation > for a /48 allocation for a connected site, and the provider wants to > offer static /48's to always-on sites, won't it hit trouble whether it is > using a /35 or a /29? If you say "either there are enough prefixes to > route the currently connected customers or there aren't" then you're > saying either we will have ISP's out there who can allocate static /48's > to sites, or we won't. It'd be nice if the answer was that we will... > even if that provider has a million customers.
Tim, I fail to see your point here. Lots of people will settle with a dynamic /64. (they won't even pay 5 bucks a month more to get a static one). Some will want a static /64 because they have thap mp3 server that their want their buddies to access and also because they want to be able to telnet to their linux box from the office. Let's say the ISP will sell the static /64 prefix for $5/mo more. Finally, a small number of seriously sick geeks (count me in) that want their refrigerator to be the only IPv6 device on its very own subnet, and of course businesses, will request a static /48. That might cost twice as much as a /64, or more. Given that a /29 is half-a-million /48 prefixes, and with the most pessimistic figures about the /64 to /48 ratio, a /29 will serve a million customers with ease. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
