[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Randy Lindsey]

> > > 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).

Categories should not be based on who you are (home, SOHO, enterprise)
but rather on what you do with the address space and your justification
for it.  I don't think it is rocket science to set some criteria around
number of hosts, number of subnets etc. similar to the current
justification.

A very simple (and no doubt inadequate) set of categories would be:
  - 1 host (are we really talking about global routing entries at this
level?)
  - 1 subnet (um, what size?)
  - 2-5 subnets
  - 6-20 subnets
Etc.

Randy Lindsey
Colorado Information Technologies, Inc.
http://www.coinfotech.com