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 
% > .....
% > 	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
% > 
% 
% A micro allocation in V6 is quite a bit different to V4 in that the basic /64
% unit should cater for virtually unlimited numbers of hosts.  Allowing a small
% number of bits for subnetting & routing would be all that's needed, so I would
% suggest anything between /48 & /64 would be more than adequate.
% 
% Peter


	Er, that is pretty much exactly the point I was trying to make.
	If Brian is right and that group is successful in restricting 
	announcements to /29's, how much space is wasted for the sixty
	nodes that form the cluster "www.bigco.com" that has connections
	to 20 major ISPs?

	

-- 
--bill