[ppml] IPv6>>32

[David Kessens]

Owen,

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 03:08:45PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > As for my personal opinion, yes I do think that the policy is perhaps
> > a bit too generous, especially in the case for more commodity style
> > Internet services like DSL/cable/dorm rooms/WLAN deployments.
> > Therefore, I think it would make sense to add a category for this kind
> > users which would broadly fit into what most people describe as "SOHO"
> > users.
> 
> So... Just out of curiosity, what would your suggested policy for this
> class of users be?  I tend to think /64 and possibly a new /56 category,
> but, certainly I would have trouble thinking that relegating anyone
> who might match the SOHO category to being unable to qualify for multiple
> subnets is a bad idea.  I think the gains of octet boundaries are worth
> the tradeoffs (the dns hacks to handle VLSM IN-ADDR delegation really
> are hacky).

I think it is more useful to agree (or disagree :-)) whether creation
of such a category makes sense at all before diving into the exact
details on what the limits should be. a /56 for SOHO users that need
more than one subnet would work for me and a /64 otherwise. However, I
think an answer on whether creation of such a category is useful is
way more important (for the moment).

David Kessens
---