[ppml] proposed updates to 2006-4

[Andrew Dul]

>  -------Original Message-------
>  From: Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org>
>  Subject: Re: [ppml] proposed updates to 2006-4
>  Sent: 31 Mar '06 10:15
>  
>  Thus spake "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net>
>  > As I've discussed this policy, a couple of parts of the existing text may
>  > need to be revised.
>  >
>  > 1. We should reserve a larger block than a /44.  Reserving larger blocks
>  > at this point can likely only benefit us in the future as networks grow.
>  > I've proposed updating 2006-4 to a /40 reserved block, but I'm open to
>  > discussing larger blocks if people think that is needed.
>  
>  /44 was 1,048,576 subnets; do we have any reason to believe a single
>  end-user org will ever need to exceed that?  If so, why do we think
>  16,777,216 subnets will be enough?  This change is either unnecessary or
>  insufficient.
>  

We have to draw a line somewhere.../44 was too small for some, and too larger for others.  We just need to find some common ground based on what we know today and then being mindful that this could change in the future.

The reasoning descibed to me for the larger than /48 per org, would be if an org wanted to subnet each of their major facilities a /56 level.  If you can assign a /56 to every home, then it seemed reasonable to me to assign a /56 to larger facilities within a large org.

Andrew