[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

On Thursday 08 June 2006 12:25, Carlos Friacas wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, David Conrad wrote:
> > Can you identify an organization that does not want to avoid renumbering
> > or which might not identify a need to be multihomed?
>
> Yes!!! ...there are a lot of clueless people around ;-)
>
> > I have a couple of LANs at my house.  A /48 for each LAN sounds
> > reasonable to me.  Does that justify an IPv6 /32?

I think the /32 came from the standard filtering "rule" that some people 
adopt. Although I see the rationale for enforcing aggregation I wonder if the 
generic rule to  block anything that is smaller holds ground and is that 
useful.

-- 
Marc van Selm
NATO C3 Agency
CIS Division
E-mail: marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int (PGP capable)