About address allocating

[Nick Sayer]

Miles Nordin wrote:
> 
> On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 03:17:57PM +0200, Francis Dupont wrote:
> >    >is to introduce "small site" which get
> >    >/56 (on byte boundary, large enough for up to 256 subnetworks or
> >    >a few levels of hierarchy).
> 
> > => the idea is that it is easier for someone which needs a /48
> > to deal with its ISP than for a common customer to fight in order to
> > get a /48 because /64 is not enough:
> 
> w.t.f.?  I thought the point if IPv6 was to get rid of all this stingy
> political nonsense.  I should have enough addresses to represent my
> internal topology.  I should not have to pay or fight for them.  PERIOD.
> Why is RIPE backpedaling from this?

[I at first replied privately, but would like to gather public opinion
too]

I must agree, for anyone with fixed connectivity, even down to ISDN
sorts of
bandwidth levels, a /48 is the only fair thing to do.

But I would like to inquire about providers of the bare-bones $19.95 (or
free
and add-sponsored) v.90 connectivity. The vast majority of these
customers
are connecting one computer to the Internet on-demand. Surely a /64
is good enough for them...? Who honestly believes that I need 65,535
subnets
of 2^64 addresses to hook my laptop up to the net from my hotel room at
USENIX? :-)

In either case, the time to figure out what to do is now. IPv6-over-PPP
surely will
be a product on offer sooner rather than later.