[sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

[owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net]

>From owner-sig-ipv6  Sat Jul  8 02:16:19 2000
Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (munnari.OZ.AU [128.250.1.21])
	by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA98863
	for <sig-ipv6@apnic.net>; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:16:17 +1000 (EST)
Received: from mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU ([128.250.1.5])
	by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.59) id QA29127;
	Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:15:58 +1000 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU)
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
To: Brad Huntting <huntting@hunkular.glarp.com>
Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net,
        mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:56:23 CST."
             <200007071556.JAA01092@hunkular.glarp.com> 
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 02:15:57 +1000
Message-Id: <16970.962986557@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU>

    Date:        Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:56:23 -0600
    From:        Brad Huntting <huntting@hunkular.glarp.com>
    Message-ID:  <200007071556.JAA01092@hunkular.glarp.com>

  | IMHO, the problem lies with using /64 for the default subnet size;

There is no real "problem".   No-one who has ever actually looked
at the numbers believes there is a problem with /48 allocations to
sites (though I personally have no problem considering a pool of
dial in users to be a single site if they have no need for more than
a /64 each).

The "we have to conserve those 2^48 numbers" comes from the same
kind of philosophy as the people who bought a 2 bedroom house, then
had 3 kids, and all of them had to share a bedroom.   That was a
problem, so then they bought a 500 room hotel - but still made the
kids share a room, because they ran out before, and they were
going to make certain that would never happen again.

  | /80 would probably be more than enough for any conceivable "layer
  | 2" protocol.

Except that IEEE has created 64 bit MAC identifiers for use by its
new protocols, and /80 would kill easy autoconf.   For sure, /80
(even /96) leaves way too many addresses for any conceivable subnet
to ever use them all - but making things fit in less is more work
that it is worth.

kre

*              sig-ipv6:  APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues           *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net *