[ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8

[Lea Roberts]

hi Randy -

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Randy Bush wrote:

> >    The following guidelines may be useful (but they are only guidelines):
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> >    - /56 for small sites, those expected to need only a few subnets
> >      over the next 5 years.
>
> 256 is a few?  if you have to nibble away at it, isn't a /60 more
> like a few

I don't disagree...  we just put out some talking numbers and thank you
for your suggestion(s).  I think one thing I would like to know is what
people think about providing generous assignments with the justification
being to make sure to provide flexibility to adapt to new architectures
that we have yet to imagine.  That's been the argument for /48 everywhere
and I don't want to fall into the tighten it too much trap.  I believe it
is *really* important to try to make sure that everyone who needs lots of
subnets can get them easily.  This needs to be balanced against careless
waste of the address space.

that said, do others think we should add the /60 "for a few" to the
guidelines?

> >    - /48 for larger sites
>
> i still do not understand why/how you are picking these points on
> the knob.  what we really mean is allocate what is justifiable for
> the next few ( !=256 :-) years.

Our goal is to provide some numbers for people with less clue than you.
Are you suggesting that we should assume a sufficient clue level for all
ISP/LIRs?

> >    For end sites to whom DNS will be delegated, the LIR/ISP
>                           ^ reverse

thanks for this editorial suggestion.  I will ask Einar to include it if
he can...				thanks again,		/Lea