Hi Mat,
imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" network, i mean when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation.
What Thomas said. Allocations should not be made based on the size of the network, but rather on the location of the network within the overall heirarchy. In the absence of a multihoming solution, this is the only way that scalability can be preserved long-term.
I agree that allocating prefixes w.r.t the location in the hierarchy preserves aggregation, which is vital for the routing system scalability. otoh, i am not sure that imposing that a network with zillions of nodes must renumber when changing isps is a reasonable requirement. that is why, defining what a very large network is may be useful regards, marcelo
Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" but rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more useful numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these are big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more end-users then most ISPs.
how much is x?
x is irrelevant.
-- Mat