[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement - Last Call

[Christopher Morrow]

On 4/14/06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:
> Hi Owen,
>
> Yes, I know, it may seem so, but is not the case.
>
> Actually for the ISP is cheaper to keep a flat infrastructure, having
> everything with /48.
>

based on which cost model? I can assign a single /48 to a BRAS and
push /64's to end bridge devices... that seems 'cheaper' to me in
terms of route-bloat in my core... Just curious as to where your
figure comes from really, thanks.

in general I really don't support this fictional 'classful ipv6': /32
= provider, /48 = customer, /64 = LAN. I believe it's wasteful and
unnecessary. Especially in a world that's been pushed to smaller
subnets/broadcast domains and an increase of bandwidth per LAN
required. there are some interesting contradictions in the ages-old v6
address planning and current world networking...

-Chris