Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 11:26:57AM +0200, Pim van Pelt wrote:
I think that reserving /8s is better than /6s. The DNS issue is one thing, the scalability question in (1) is another. A /8 should be enough for a RIR in the midterm future, if a RIR explodes (IP space wise) they can always be plugged into another /8 in the future. I think this will be a more stable situation than scaling down from /6s to /7s (as Gert suggested).
However you label it (/8s that can grow into a /6, or /6s that can be shrunk into /7s, if needed) doesn't make a real difference. The important thing about the "/6 approach" is that the initial /12s (growing to /8s) are allocated with so much room in between that you *can* grow to a /7 or /6, if necessary, and don't have to start a second (or even more) block per RIR. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299