[sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [itojun@iijlab.net]

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

>From owner-sig-ipv6  Sat Jul  8 02:45:51 2000
Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97])
	by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA99423
	for <sig-ipv6@apnic.net>; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:45:49 +1000 (EST)
Received: from kiwi.itojun.org (localhost.itojun.org [127.0.0.1])
	by coconut.itojun.org (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W/smtpfeed 1.06) with ESMTP id BAA14012;
	Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:45:41 +0900 (JST)
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
In-reply-to: tjc's message of Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:25:08 +0100.
      <Pine.SOL.4.20.0007071703400.16436-100000@penelope.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD  90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision
From: itojun@iijlab.net
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:45:41 +0900
Message-ID: <14010.962988341@coconut.itojun.org>
Sender: itojun@itojun.org


>> /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.   By 2001 there will be over 800
>University and further education colleges online under the UK JANET network.

	While I understand the problem you have, I would like t know why
	you'd like to offer /40 to every universities.  Are there any reason
	not to do /48 for universities, or couple of /48s? 

	We (WIDE) offer /48 for leaf sites (an organization which has no
	plan to have sub-organization, i.e. universities and companies,
	not an ISP), and /40 to non-leaf downstream sites (an organization
	which has plan t have sub-organization, i.e. an ISP).
	Once a leaf site use up /48, they'd be able to get another /48 from us.
	Until now we saw no problem with it.
	"/48 allocation to everyone" is just fine for me (or us).
	We cannot predict the future growth of leaf site.
	We don't want to, we don't need to.  SOHO can evolve into
	multinational company.

	We have more important problem to tackle.  The problem lies elsewhere,
	I believe.  Once our network grows into /29, and to /16, we'd need
	to carry 2^(48-29) or 2^(48-16) routes in a TLA.  It's like having
	the whole IPv4 space in one ISP.  We need to have a very careful plan
	on inner-TLA topology, so that we can aggregate internal routes nicely.
	We may need more experiences/standards in hierarchical interior routing
	operation.

itojun

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