Tim Chown wrote: > You assume that the /29 can be deployed in such a way that there is > 100% utilisation. Is that really the case? (If I consider how a /29 > may be used by a national academic research network provider, then > the regionalisation of the networks mean it won't be, and on top of > that you would presumably be making an address plan with growth in > mind, e.g. for regional PoPs).
And you are arguing that the national academic research network provider needs more than 10 bits to serve its customers. While this is probably true for the IPv4 space since the customers acquired their allocations independently from the provider and are therefore disjoint, consider that the process of moving allows the provider to structure the boundaries according to density. If your argument is that this does not align perfectly with current topology, how much of that could/would be fixed if address management required it? In other words, how much of current topology is there because it can be as opposed to it needs to be? Granted there will be cases where topology can't be perfectly aligned to achieve 100% allocation efficiency, but I don't see anyone demanding 100%. Have you tried to get an allocation large enough to cover the network by allocating /48's to the current customers? If so what was the response? Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
