[sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Randy Bush <rbush@bainbridge.verio.net>]

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

>From owner-sig-ipv6  Fri Jul  7 07:26:09 2000
Received: from roam.psg.com ([204.254.22.112])
	by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA77595
	for <sig-ipv6@apnic.net>; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:26:06 +1000 (EST)
Received: from randy by roam.psg.com with local (Exim 3.12 #1)
	id 13AJ7o-0000rS-00; Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:24:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Randy Bush <rbush@bainbridge.verio.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Cc: stephenb@uk.uu.net, Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM,
        ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com,
        arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision
References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org>
	<39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net>
	<3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <E13AJ7o-0000rS-00@roam.psg.com>
Sender: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:24:00 -0400

> Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything
> longer than a /48 in the first place? 

i believe the document restricted it to single-device network allocations.
is a /64 too small for a single device?

randy

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