[6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?

[Jeroen Massar]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dan Reeder wrote:

> I'm not sure where things went awry but i've got this feeling 
> that I've been included in this "charge per ip" lameness.
> 
> The problem is that, perhaps because some of us have had to 
> live under the strong arm of apnic, that the tendency to want to conserve 
> addressing is a bit of a habit.

APNIC is conservative because the APNIC members mandated that policy.

For IPv6 they are *NOT* conservative though, check the number
of TLA's that for instance NTT have received, yes a lot :)

> Personally whenever I see things like /48s being given to
> users left right and center I get reminded of the consequences of Stanford
> being given a v4 /8 way back in the early days.

Read the HD Ratio RFC and understand that statistically
we are doing the good thing. If it isn't the good thing
then we only wasted 3% (!!!!!) of the IPv6 space.
Where is this problem now?

<SNIP>

> yes most of us will agree that a /48 being given to a 17 year 
> old for use on his 3-pc lan, but then why is a /64 acceptable?

A /64 is for a link, if a site has a possiblity of more than
1 link give them a /48. How difficult is that?

Greets,
 Jeroen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/

iQA/AwUBP5qQcCmqKFIzPnwjEQKsdACeKNi+Hxn5G4JRRZ3iCyN7ZHziX64An3fZ
3EyetkjCTZB3dYz4vgnRzVL4
=g7KY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----