[arin-ppml] Rationale for /22

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Thu Jul 30 14:15:14 EDT 2009

In a message written on Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 06:01:33PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > While it is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum argument, consider what
> > (could) happen if the minimum were a /32.
> 	kind of like what happens when we give out everyone a /32
> 	of IPv6 space.  your arguments are identical for either 
> 	an IPv4 or IPv6 /32.  
> 	and yet we find it acceptable to hand out /32's in one space...

Bzzt.  Thanks for playing.  Please pick up a lovely parting gift on your
way out the door.

The IPv6 analogy to what I described is handing out a /128 to each
individual, which again, is not supportable.

A /32 of IPv6 space connects multiple users.  A /32 of IPv4 space does
not.  It's nice to note there are 2^32 of both, but the IPv6 network
sitll connects 2^96 more users than the IPv4 network.  The only way your
statement could be true is if someone was advocating giving IPv4 /32's
to individual end users, which no one has done.

FUD, total FUD.

       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 825 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090730/7c157cec/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list