Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy

["Alec H. Peterson" <ahp@hilander.com>]

--On Thursday, February 7, 2002 17:29 +0100 Brian E Carpenter 
<brian@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:

> Cathy,
>
> Yes, I understand why people are nervous about repeating historical
> mistakes. What I was clumsily trying to express is that objectively,
> I don't think we need to be particularly nervous about whether we
> give out /32 or /35 at the large end, or /48 or /51 (say) at the small
> end - yes I know that's a factor 8 in each case, but we do have that
> much slack in terms of available space. What is very nervous-making
> is the risk of people believing that they need, and can get, PI prefixes,
> and a lot of the last day's discussion is right on the mark
> about the risks there.

So perhaps we should focus on the question of who will get PI allocations 
before we worry about how large those allocations should be?

Along those lines, perhaps we should figure out how sites are going to 
multi-home, since that will (well, should) have a huge bearing on who gets 
PI alloocations.

Alec

--
Alec H. Peterson -- ahp@hilander.com
Chief Technology Officer
Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com
-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net