stla registry db issue

[Bill Manning]

% >   so what are we supposed to do with the /35 sTLA allocations that
% >   the RIRs dish out for permanent (as opposed to 6bone) addresses?
% 
% The RIR policy is to reserve the whole /29 for expansion of the /35.
% They promised never to allocate parts of the same /29 to more than
% one user.
% 
% Therefore, the /35 can be announced simply by announcing the whole /29
% that contains it. There will never be anyone else in that /29, so there
% is no need to announce the longer prefix.
% 
% We must establish this principle solidly now, so that we **never** see
% holes punched in /29s.
% 
%   Brian

	This has its own set of problems.  See the current discussion
	on micro-allocations inside ARIN.  In IPv4 parlence, it seems
	a tremendous waste of space to delegate a /19 for a site that
	will never have more than a few hosts yet will be multiply 
	homed. What I see here is the same argument, a /29 for a small
	set of nodes that will -never- meet the growth prospects for 
	numbers of end-nodes.  Historically this was also the case for
	IPv4 and its design, pre-subnetting.  It became clear that 
	there would not be a small number of networks with millions of
	nodes.  Hence the initial subnettting model (class A/B/C) and
	the CIDR refinements. 
	Is it just me or are we failing to learn from history here?
	This looks like a small number of networks with order(n) number
	of end-systems... all over again.

--bill