[75719] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin Loch)
Sun Nov 21 18:00:00 2004
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:00:55 -0500
From: Kevin Loch <kloch@hotnic.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <g3llcv6sbp.fsf@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Paul Vixie wrote:
> But
>
>to consider a /40 minimum allocation size, you'd be saying that you thought
>a table containing O(1e12) discrete destinations
>
Except that we are talking about allocations out of 2001::/16 which
yeilds a about
1e7 prefixes, not subtracting the huge chunks taken by /32 allocations.
The idea with
using a /16 for initial allocations is that we don't screw up the entire
/0 before we know
what we are doing. In the scope of a /16, I think /32 and /40
allocations are sized
appropriately. The real question is why exchange points and root
servers are allocated
/48's. It would make sense to use a different prefix length to reduce
the temptation for
other /48's to pollute the table.
