|
|
 |
Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 10:08:00 -0700
--On Thursday, February 7, 2002 17:29 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
brian@localhost wrote:
Cathy,
Yes, I understand why people are nervous about repeating historical
mistakes. What I was clumsily trying to express is that objectively,
I don't think we need to be particularly nervous about whether we
give out /32 or /35 at the large end, or /48 or /51 (say) at the small
end - yes I know that's a factor 8 in each case, but we do have that
much slack in terms of available space. What is very nervous-making
is the risk of people believing that they need, and can get, PI prefixes,
and a lot of the last day's discussion is right on the mark
about the risks there.
So perhaps we should focus on the question of who will get PI allocations
before we worry about how large those allocations should be?
Along those lines, perhaps we should figure out how sites are going to
multi-home, since that will (well, should) have a huge bearing on who gets
PI alloocations.
Alec
--
Alec H. Peterson -- ahp@localhost
Chief Technology Officer
Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com
|
|
|
|
