Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:51:23 -0800
From: "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Absolutely. If you dial into your company, there is nothing that I
| know of that says you must get a /64. The allocation of the SLA
| bits is at the discretion of the company's network administrator,
| and allocating a /60 to ...
A while ago, you were insisting that everyone get a /48 ... (in this
message you changed from absolute to "should", which is only a minor
variation).
What people get should depend upon their needs. It should be very
easy to qualify for a /48, but if I don't need that much, and know
don't need that much, why should anyone force me to take it?
A /60 would do fine for me, that's about my need - a /128 would do
just fine for my mother, that's her need (today anyway) (her system
has no networking devices, other than a modem).
| Poor choice of words. What is the word you would use to qualify
| violating RFC2373?
A broken standard.
| Personally, I find the /64 way simpler. In the example above, it eats
| 1/16th of the /48 and allows for 4,096 links. Organisations with more
| than 4,096 links could use /51 or /50 and, if needed, request a /47
| or a /46.
You missed the main point. You're still stuck in this mental model
where there are providers, who have short prefix lengths, and other
organisations which get longer ones (/48 .. perhaps /47 or /46 if they're
very big). There is no such distinction, at some level, everyone is
a provider - and attempting to force things into some model where they're
not is simply absurd. I don't want to have to go running to APNIC (or
ARIN or RIPE in other parts of the world) and try to justify getting a /35
or whatever their base (smallest) allocation is at the time, just because
I want to connect a few friends and family to my house (thus becoming
their ISP).
Once again, all we need here is the most flexibility we can have, no
built in assumptions about what is required to be a boundary (and to
simply ignore any noise in any docs which claims there is such a thing).
If we do that, and if we keep on having autoconf on the most common networks
assuming it has a /64 to play in (leaving anyone wanting to use such a net
requiring at least a prefix that long) and the world will sort itself out.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
