On 11/14/11 9:29 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
It is not that I disagree on that /29 is a good size... but, just to repeat myself and some others.
Why are we doing this step by step all over again? Last we went from /35 to /32, now we go from /32 to /29. I guess the next time we'll be talking about this topic is around 2015-2017... Why not do it properly this time around? Like a /26 or so? We got plenty of address space to burn really....
Dear Roger, /29 was chosen for "fairness" factor - every legacy /32 can be expanded to /29 without renumbering, as that is exactly the amount of space "reserved" for every /32. If we decide to go to /26, then only new allocations gets /26, legacy ones need to renumber if expanded. It's a tradeoff in favor of fairness. Cheers, Jan