About address allocating

[David Burgess]

Nick Sayer wrote:
> 
> Lucky Green wrote:
> Having every one of those providers having to get a /48 for every 
> single modem they have is ludicrous overkill. The way the PPP RFCs 
> for IPv6 read, the path of least resistance is to give each modem 
> _bank_ a /64. The prefix is sufficient to route to a specific bank. 
> The dialup link will provide its own EID, which has the added benefit 
> of making hijack-by-connection-reuse less likely and means that such 
> dynamic users who dial the same bank probably _do_ have a static IP 
> address after all (since their EID is not likely/supposed > to 
> change).
> 
> No, we don't have to be misers with v6 address space like we did 
> under v4.  And yes, I think that anyone with a dedicated link of any 
> kind really ought to get a /48. Even dialup customers who do the 
> dedicated-dialup trick ought to.
> But I have no problem drawing the line at on-demand-dynamic-dialup 
> customers. Just because a resource is plentiful doesn't _require_ 
> us to waste it.

I agree with this 100%.  The US Robotics Total Control can now manage
16 incoming T1s in a single cabinet.  Even then, that's only 384 
modems.  A /64 should be sufficient for those.  There are plenty of 
addresses for people who need subnets, and the management for each 
(single) modem is fairly easy.  Autodiscovery should take care of 
the rest.