Hi Usman,

This is a good question and worth discussing.  But, it should be discussed in perhaps the apnic-talk list, not the sig-policy list, which is for policy related discussion.

Let's take it over there, and let the discussion begin!


…Skeeve


APNIC Sig-Policy Co-Chair

 

--

Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists

skeeve@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net

Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellego or eintellego@facebook.com

twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve

PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia


--

eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call

- Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Huawei


On 16/09/11 6:09 PM, "Usman Latif" <osmankh@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi,

I am trying to understand the reasoning and logic behind IETF/IANA's decision to recommend assignments of /64 addresses to residential CPEs ??
In my opinion, this would result in a lot of unnecessary wastage of IPv6 address space.

Can someone help me to point towards the drivers behind this thinking?

IMO a /96 IPv6 assignment to residential customers is more than enough.


regards
Usman
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy