[sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Ignatios Souvatzis <ignatios@cs.uni-bonn.de>]

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

>From owner-sig-ipv6  Sat Jul  8 03:04:53 2000
Received: from theory.cs.uni-bonn.de (theory.cs.uni-bonn.de [131.220.4.211])
	by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA99793
	for <sig-ipv6@apnic.net>; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:04:51 +1000 (EST)
Received: (from ignatios@localhost)
	by theory.cs.uni-bonn.de (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA20679;
	Fri, 7 Jul 2000 19:04:34 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 19:04:34 +0200
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <ignatios@cs.uni-bonn.de>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Steve Deering <deering@cisco.com>,
        Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>,
        Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>, stephenb@uk.uu.net,
        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
Message-ID: <20000707190434.D25625@theory.cs.uni-bonn.de>
References: <v04220802b58b9b380355@[10.19.130.188]> <Pine.SOL.4.20.0007071703400.16436-100000@penelope.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.20.0007071703400.16436-100000@penelope.ecs.soton.ac.uk>; from tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk on Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 05:25:08PM +0100

On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 05:25:08PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Steve Deering wrote:
> 
> > /48 was intended to be the *minimum* allocation to a subscriber's site, not
> > the *maximum*.  Those exceptional subscribers for whom a /48 is too small
> > are free to request larger blocks from their ISPs.
> 
> But that's where the /35 "pressure" applies because if (say) UKERNA wanted 
> to offer a /40 to each University it would at present be looking at being
> able to connect just 32 Universities.

Hm... but... 

a /48 (2^16 networks) is already more than any University (I know of) has
today in v4-land. This will allow for quite some growth.

So there is no need to given them a /40 _now_. Sparsely - allocated /48 are 
fine, can be extended if needed, unless filled up, in which case renumbering
is easy. At least much easier than in v4-world.

Regards,
	-is

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