[ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8

[Kevin Loch]

Lea Roberts wrote:

> 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.  

Generous minimums are beneficial for allocations/assignments
made directly by an RIR.  This helps reduce the number of
non-aggregatable prefixes per AS. This benefit does not seem to apply to
assignments from LIR->end user.

> 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.

I think what Rany is saying is to allow end users whatever address space
they need, but don't give them space they don't need. They can always go
back and get more if their needs change.

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

Yes, 16 subnets seems like a sufficient size for most residential/small 
business networks today.

Now how do we ensure that end users can get more space if they
do need it?  Should the policy require LIR's to assign up to /48
to an org if they request it?

- Kevin