Unless you think we are likely to exhaust the
35 trillion /48s quickly, it's entirely appropriate
(because it keeps things simple).
Brian
BAUDOT Alain FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote:
>
> > >On the contrary, maybe, providing a /48 while having a /32 as an
> > >ISP makes NAT coming as a solution, according to the potential
> > >number of customers... and, for sure, I do agree that we have to
> > >make NAT silly.
> >
> > ISP can ask for more address to RIR when they have got
> > 2^16 customers.
> >
> Sure. I just wonder if a /48 at home is really apprpriate.
>
> Alain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
