[address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Wed Nov 2 23:13:07 CET 2005
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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]