[ppml] alternative to 2005-1
> > Also, why do you specify /19 for #5 under 220.127.116.11? Shouldn't someone with
> > a IPv4 PI /22 be able to get an IPv6 /48?
> It is just a line in the sand.
> I personally believe that a /22 is too small, however there are
> those who will think that an org with a /22 should be able to obtain
> a IPv6 PI address space.
Note: a /22 is only 2^10 addresses, or 1024. That's a pretty darn small
site, if you ask me.
A /19 is somewhat better, namely, 8192.
Still, I fear there are 10s to 100s of thousands of organizations in
this size. Remember, each entity with a PI assignment translates into
a routing slot in the DFZ.
Heck, even if we set a threshold of /16, we'd be saying "anyone who
can justify a class B assignment". I suspect that the number of end
sites meeting that criteria is pretty large.
I'd feel a lot more comfortable picking a threshold if I had a rough
idea of how many entities we're talking about who would qualify. Given
the above, even /19 sounds too low.
In the absense of data, I'd say be _very _ conservative, e.g., start
with a /16 (or higher).