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

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 01:30:37PM -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
> > "A networks are too big" doesn't really hold - if anything, /32s are
> > too small.
> 
> might it not depend on the size of the network?  that is a lesson
> we learned in cidr back in the early '90s.  how many times do we need
> to learn it?

Isn't that what we have?  "You get a /32, unless you can explain why
a bigger block is reasonable for your network, and in that case, you get 
more".  

So it *does* depend on the size of the network, but at the same time tries 
to reduce bureaucracy in the actual allocation process.

(Personally, I'm a bit unhappy because I think the "32" number is
erring towards the "conservation" side, and this might lead to having
multiple allocations for ISPs that start small but grow quickly.  But
the way RIPE is currently reserving /29s for those ISPs, the case *should*
be infrequent)

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