I do not agree with the contention that allocations larger than /28 - e.g. /24 
, /20 - will be "too huge".



In my view there are three factors in play here:

1)      we are still "thinking small", a mind-set caused by the scarcity of 
IPv4 address space

2)      we are not considering use cases in the so-called "Internet of Things" 
where there may be requirements for support of huge client address spaces. As a 
mind experiment, imagine that one day in the not too distant future Toyota will 
want a /60 or even a /56 for every vehicle they manufacture. At their current 
rat of production, close to 10 Million vehicles a year,  they will need huge 
allocation rather quickly, and of course so will all the other vehicle 
manufacturers

3)      we are forgetting the historical precedent: the Australian Defence 
Force was allocated a /20 by APNIC in 2007, and the US Department of Defense 
already has a /13. So we have at least one organisation in APNIC who already 
thinks that a /20 is 'just right' rather than 'too huge'.





Regards





Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tomohiro -INSTALLER- 
Fujisaki/?? ??
Sent: Monday, 15 September 2014 11:56 a.m.
To: [email protected]
Subject: [sig-policy] New version of prop-111: Request-based expansion of IPv6 
default allocation size



Hi all,



Thank you again for your comments to prop-111.



I got several comments for nibble boundary allocation. I think /28 might be OK, 
but additional allocation after /28 will be too huge with this allocation 
scheme (that will be /24, /20, ...).



Here is current summary of nibble boundary allocation.  I would appreciate your 
additional opinions.



Advantages:

- ease of address masking and calculation

- ease of DNS reverse delegation set up



Disadvantages:

- LIRs in legacy space cannot extend prefix to /28

- allocation size will be too huge (allocations after /28 will be /24, /20..)



Yours Sincerely,

--

Tomohiro Fujisaki

*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *

_______________________________________________

sig-policy mailing list

[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or 
distribute this message or the information in it.

If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
the sender immediately.
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to