--On Tuesday, 28 August, 2007 15:06 -0700 David Kessens
<david.kessens@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thomas,
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 04:09:14PM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
>>
>> We shouldn't be surprised that a "one size fits all" approach
>> (where home users get the same amount of space by default as
>> an IBM or Microsoft) doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to
>> some people.
>
> US 2001:49c0::/32 2001:49c0::/32 IBM-IPV6-01
> US 2001:4898::/32 2001:4898::/32 MICROSOFT-IPV6-BLK
>
> If there really is a "one size fits all" policy,
> where can I get my personal IPv6 /32 allocation ?
Conversely, if /48 is sufficient for any plausible enterprise,
is ARIN being appropriately conservative about addresses here?
Even extrapolation from the new ARIN table
> * /64 - Site needing only a single subnet.
> * /60 - Site with 2-3 subnets initially.
> * /56 - Site with 4-7 subnets initially.
> * /52 - Site with 8-15 subnets initially.
> * /48 - Site with 16+ subnets initially.
would give
/44 - 32 subnets plus
/40 - 64 subnets plus
/36 - 128 subnets plus
/32 - 256 subnets plus
Well, maybe I/we believe that is plausible and maybe we don't,
but it seems to me that it is a significant change in policy and
that a "subnets needed" model is, at that scale, a significant
change from policies based simply on HD-ratios (which don't
consider the number of subnets in an allocation at all as far as
I can tell).
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf