Re: classful routes redux

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Nov 3, 2005, at 4:34 PM, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:

>         saving the poor routing table is a laudable and worthwhile goal,
>         but dumping the excess into the edges, "just cause its easy" strikes
>         me as lame.  a routing table slot is a slot is a slot.  It holds
>         a /96 as well as a /32 as well as a /112.  If we are going to ditch
>         "microassignments" (and boy is that term an oxymoron) then we should
>         also dump "one-size-fits-all" and really and truely give folks what
>         they need.  RIRs have -never- assured the routablity of delegations.

Disagree.

The one saving grace I can see of v6 is that there is enough space to  
give everyone the space they need in a single allocation.

It's not a waste if it keeps people from needing a second block.

Maybe not everyone needs a /32, but let's not get stingy with  
plentiful resources (IP space in v6) and risk using too much of a not- 
so-plentiful resource (routing table slot).

--
TTFN,
patrick