[ppml] /48 vs /32 micro allocations

Jeff Williams jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Wed Mar 16 04:13:22 EST 2005

Paul and all,

  Finnally a voice of reason.  I agree with you on this one Paul.
Size matters in some things, but not here..  >;)

Paul Vixie wrote:

> > I can think of at least one...
> >       The greater the sparsity of address utilization, the easier
> > it is to hijack portions of the address space.  That, in and of itself,
> > to me seems like a good reason NOT to pursue a sparse allocation policy.
> this is nonsequitur.  ipv4 is a lot smaller and denser than ipv6, and yet
> spammers routinely advertise ipv4 blocks, spam from them for a few minutes,
> and then withdraw the route before most folks get around to traceroute'ing.
> we're going to need some form of end to end bgp authentication no matter
> whether we move to ipv6 or not, or do so with sparse allocations or dense.

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list