who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
Kevin Loch
kloch at hotnic.net
Sun Nov 21 23:00:55 UTC 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.
More information about the NANOG
mailing list