[address-policy-wg] Re: /48 or /56 to 'home' end-sites?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Chown" <tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:26 PM


>>
>> Is it maybe time to look at this /48 policy and change it in the
>> direction of the above that home endsites get a /56 instead of a full
>> blown /48 which they will never use. Or do people think that it is fine
>> and that we should not bother here at all?
>
> So I guess people should comment on Thomas' IETF I-D...
>

I'd like,

I see it is that time of the year again when we try to (re)define magic 
constants because the standard deviation is out of the dynamic "most people" 
scope.
Can't we just respect the physical upper and lower limit instead of trying 
to decide what the mean value should be? I know it is only a recomendation, 
but we are still trying to alter it.
There are no good reasons for having predefined inner boundaries unless you 
argue that your software/hardware would better support a,b,c,d and not a-z 
because the author didn't assume you would use anything else. The reason for 
that again might just be because they followed previous recomendations in 
the past for what these numbers usually should be.
I would rather see recomendations more like "make sure you assign a subnet 
which is large enough to handle at least NN times the userbase in two years" 
than "use prefixlength 48".




Jørgen Hovland