North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

  • From: Kevin Loch
  • Date: Sun Nov 21 18:01:26 2004 
Paul Vixie wrote:


But

to consider a /40 minimum allocation size, you'd be saying that you thought
a table containing O(1e12) discrete destinations
Except that we are talking about allocations out of 2001::/16 which yeilds a about
1e7 prefixes, not subtracting the huge chunks taken by /32 allocations. The idea with
using a /16 for initial allocations is that we don't screw up the entire /0 before we know
what we are doing. In the scope of a /16, I think /32 and /40 allocations are sized
appropriately. The real question is why exchange points and root servers are allocated
/48's. It would make sense to use a different prefix length to reduce the temptation for
other /48's to pollute the table.