[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Marshall Eubanks]

I would support the proposal in general, but why shouldn't a leaf  
organization get
a /48 ( = a /16 in IPv4) if they don't demonstrate a need for more ?

I certainly could be convinced otherwise, but is there a real reason  
why not ?

Regards
Marshall


On Jan 30, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Thus spake "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com>
>>> So, just to be clear, a site that is multihomed and in one physical
>>> location will get a /44 ?
>>
>> thanks for asking.  this is the bit that confuses me the most.
>> i thought that this was precisely where the /48 break point was
>> intended.  i am confused here somewhere.
>
> Are we really proposing that a leaf organization get a /48 per  
> location?
>
> I think the rest of the proposal is a step in the right direction,  
> but I have a hard time rationalizing more than a /48 per single  
> leaf org unless they justify the need for more subnets.
>
> Think about it: McDonalds would qualify for a /31 (or so) under  
> this proposal, as much or more than most ISPs.  They'd be able to  
> assign a /64 to _every hamburger they sell_, not just the stores.   
> While I'm sure that would be entertaining, is this a reasonable  
> policy direction?
>
> 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
>