It has been very interesting to follow your discussion here. Thanks. I know my comments/question may go off topic, but...
On 7 Feb 2002, Robert Kiessling wrote:
Sorry to ask since I wasn't at the meeting: What was said about larger allocation sizes than /32, e.g. for multinational ISPs for which a /32 does not provide sufficient space for reasonable aggregation?
On 7 Feb 2002, Tim Chown wrote:
Or for a national provider who may want to give a static /48 to a few hundred thousand customers. How much of the address assignment maths includes static vs dynamic provisioning?
Or for a global multinational company (not being ISP/LIR/...) having around the globe offices and sites and multiple public/private network transfer points. Here are the alternatives thought of: a) Introduce one global big enough prefix with hierarchy classes like region/country/city/site/business_unit/function/network_type and reserve space enough to each class AND also requiring optimized routing solution with many! private/public network transfer points. (preferred I guess) b) Applying for different prefix from all regions and introduce geographical address allcoation scheme with those different prefixes from all various regions... (feasible and likely, but not liked) c) Applying for different prefixes from all countries and introduce geographical address allocation scheme with thos hundreds of different prefixes... (no thanks :-) d) Other, what? -- Pauli Wihuri,Nokia,IPv6 network program manager,(external from Hewlett-Packard)