[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Kevin Loch]

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?

My memory of the last meeting is a bit foggy but I distinctly remember
that as a suggestion by several people.  I think it came out of the
"one size does not fit all", and "host counts are stupid, why not
count subnets or locations" train of thought.

> 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?

I'm not privy to how they connect their resturaunts.  It is conceivable
that each franchise would be responsible for getting internet service on
their own.  In that case you would have a /48 per restaurant.

If The parent corp was providing IPv6 to each resturaunt they could
become an LIR, get a /32 and issue /48's to franchisees who are separate
organizations.

- Kevin