[ppml] 2005-1 and/or Multi6

[Kevin Loch]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> An AS holder that needs a /32 instead of a /48 should have no
> problem meeting the current guidelines for getting a /32.
> To claim that this is not wasteful simply because it is the
> same percentage of total space is absurd.  Waste is measured
> in terms of efficient resource utilization.  Using 1 address
> for a host (an IPv4 /32) is about as non-wasteful as you
> can get.  OTOH, using 2^96 addresses for one host, or, even
> for 1,000,000 hosts is quite a bit more wasteful.  I'm not
> saying that waste in this case is necessarily harmful, but,
> I do think it should still be avoided unless there is
> compelling reason to commit such waste.

The real waste is the wase of bandwidth and memory for carrying
bits 64-127.  Since we're stuck with that...

For prefixes /32 and longer, allocations should be filter friendly and 
promote aggregation first, and relatively efficient second.

I am concerned about prefixes much shorter than /32, and think
the HD ratio should be re-evaluated as suggested in this draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huston-hd-metric-00.txt


- Kevin