Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

[Kevin Loch <kloch () hotnic net>]

Paul Vixie wrote:

> But
>
> to consider a /40 minimum allocation size, you'd be saying that you thought
> a table containing O(1e12) discrete destinations
Except that we are talking about allocations out of 2001::/16 which 
yeilds a about
1e7 prefixes, not subtracting the huge chunks taken by /32 allocations.  
The idea with
using a /16 for initial allocations is that we don't screw up the entire 
/0 before we know
what we are doing.  In the scope of a /16, I think /32 and /40 
allocations are sized
appropriately.  The real question is why exchange points and root 
servers are allocated
/48's.  It would make sense to use a different prefix length to reduce 
the temptation for
other /48's to pollute the table.