[sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

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

>From owner-sig-ipv6  Sat Jul  8 01:31:27 2000
Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15])
	by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA97919
	for <sig-ipv6@apnic.net>; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:31:24 +1000 (EST)
Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA173712; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:31:06 +0100
Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine01.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.41]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA21864; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:31:15 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <3965F75D.E9B4FF6A@hursley.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:29:33 -0500
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Burley <stephenb@uk.uu.net>
CC: 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> <3965A5F0.8505E7BA@uk.uu.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stephen Burley wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > Stephen,
> >
> > Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything
> > longer than a /48 in the first place?
> >
> 
> Call me oldfashioned but i remember when people thought we had enough space in IPv4
> and it would never run out. If you fix the boundry at a /48 it means an ISP will go
> through their block of addresses way too fast. 

Please define "way too fast" in terms of a world population of say 15 billion
people, compared with the number of /48s available.

> It also means that out customers do
> not have to think about what they are deploying as they know they will get a /48 no
> matter what. 

Indeed. This would be a *big* advantage. Why do think it is a problem?

> So a flexible boundry between /48 and /64 would help us to help
> customers to think about how they will deploy their address space. 

But it will also set us back by ten years in route aggregation.

> A /64 for dialup
> is also too rigid because the way technology is going a /64 is not going to be
> enough subnets for what wiill be a dial up connection with a large lan behind it.

Indeed. But that isn't an issue the RIRs need to think about. 

  Brian

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