[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 10:47:33AM -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
> and yes your point holds; we're doing it again.
> 
> those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

I dimly remember that it was *you* that argued very much in favour
of "give /48s to every end site, don't start handing out different 
sizes", some few meetings ago.  

So what's wrong with it, all of a sudden?

Could you please be a bit more specific about what you think is 
fundamentally wrong about the current IPv6 policy, so that we might 
go and fix it?  

"A networks are too big" doesn't really hold - if anything, /32s are
too small.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  60210  (58081)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299