[address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 07:24:02PM +0100, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
> >From the input I received I got the impression that you have to assign a 
> >/64 
> no matter what. 

Yes, and there are good reasons for that.

(Personally, I disagree with the choice of a /64 for "any sort of 
network segments", but there *are* good reasons, and this is more an
IETF engineering decision than a RIPE address policy thing)

> So it means you use 2 IPs (or 10 in my case) and toss the 
> other 2 - 2^64 away and then continue with next customer and assign a new 
> /64 and so on. I hope I see the point of all this address waste in a few 
> years. In the mean time I'll just do it(tm).

I hope you'll learn a little bit of math in the next few years - there
are enough /64s.  Whatever you want to do with it.

And no, the standard argument "and everybody said 640K was enough" does
*not* hold.  Just do the math.

(Inside a single /32, there are 4 *billion* /64s.  How many customers 
did you say that you're going to connect to your network?)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  81421

SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234