On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Tony Hain wrote: > This is why sites should be allocated /48s. There is no inherent reason > to break into the interface id space for subnets. This is particularly > true when the reason is simply to satisfy the draconian address > conservation attitude required to extend the life of IPv4 until IPv6 can > be deployed.
If that's static /48's, the /29 boundary will need revision...(and certainly a /35 would be useless to any medium ISP). Would you apply the RFC3194 0.8 HD ratio to subnets within a single ISP? I don't see that provider networks would be flat or near 100% utilisation as you suggest in your previous email. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
