Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: Válasz: Re: V álasz : [ GLOBAL-V6 ] RE: How to reduce the junk ap plications?

[Steve Deering <deering@cisco.com>]

At 12:28 AM +0100 2/15/02, Gert Doering wrote:
>I know what the draft says here, but I still claim that "number of used 
>/48s is not a useful metric to judge a network's size (or worthyness of 
>anything)".  Neither is "number of used IPv6 addresses".

Assuming the policy of one /48 per end-subscriber site is adhered to,
the meaningful metric -- *for the purpose of addressing allocation* --
is the number of end-subscriber sites (regardless of size or "worthiness")
served by an ISP.  The more subscribers, the more /48s the ISP needs,
in order to provide distinct routing to each of them.  It doesn't cost
the ISP any more routing table space or routing protocol overhead to
route to a big/important site than to a small/unimportant site, so why
do you think a network's size or importance is relevant in this context?
(Notice that a big office building gets exactly the same amount of postal
street-address space as my house  -- i.e., one street address -- even
though there are a lot more addressable entities within the office
building; it makes no difference to the addressing and routing job
of the postal system.)

If you need an "importance" metric (e.g., to filter a routing table that
has grown beyond supportable limits), go ahead and invent one, but please
don't try to overload it on the allocation size / prefix length -- we have
enough problems with deciding allocation sizes as it is.

Steve

-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net