[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Stephen Sprunk]

[ This is bordering on OT, but I'm trying to keep it relevant ]

Thus spake "Glenn Wiltse" <iggy at merit.edu>
>   If I'm not mistaken the current IPv6 policy allows a LIR to give a /48 
> to each end site. If a owner of a McD franchise (or whatever) asked a LIR 
> for IPv6 space, a LIR may likely just give that endsite a /48.  So, I 
> don't undestand why you think the entire McD business could not justify a 
> need for more then a /47.

With 31,000 sites today and ~2% annual growth, I don't see how they could 
justify asking for more than a /47 unless they had a legit use for more than 
three /64s per restaurant.  They could even fit into a /48 without 
difficulty if they only needed one per restaurant (which is what I'd 
expect).

Still, quibbling over /47 vs /44 is a distraction.  I haven't heard anyone 
say that a /32 would be reasonable for an end site under any conditions.  I 
have trouble conceiving any org on earth that has a real need for _over 
eight billion_ internal subnets, hence my original argument with the Kevin's 
draft proposal that would have given us such a policy.  It's since been 
improved.

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin