Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)

[bmanning@localhost]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:18:52PM -0000, michael.dillon@localhost wrote:
> > Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on giving
> them.
> 
> In general, I agree with those who oppose this proposal. But another
> problem with the proposal is that it will lead many organizations to
> design their IPv6 network based on a /56 rather than a /48 which is
> more normal. Organizations really should think about how they structure
> their IPv6 network and only squeeze it into a /56 if they need to.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 

	"normal" is a very odd way to couch this argument.
	why not /35 & /32, or the /56 & /64...  

	pragmatically, a network operator would be working
	in the /88 to /110 space.  the massive waste in
	delegated and unused/unusable space is almost entirely
	the result of protocol designers who had little or no
	network operational experience.

	IPv6 -  96 more bits,  No Magic.

--bill