First of all, there's disagreement about the definition of "site", and some
folks hold the opinion that means physical location. Thus, if you have 100
sites, those folks would claim you have justified 100 /48s (or one /41).
Other folks, like me, disagree with that, but there are orgs out there that
have tens of thousands of locations with a need for multiple subnets per
location, and that could justify more than a /48 as well via pure subnet
counts.
Companies with tens of thousands of sites, each needing multiple subnets
is not the norm for end user allocations. And again- would the
administrative overhead of a new /40 netblock really outweigh the benefits
to our routing tables? I'm asking not stating...
ARIN's goal in v6 is to try to issue blocks so that aggregation is
_possible_, by reserving a larger block to allow growth, but ARIN can't
prevent intentional (or accidental) deaggregation,
But ARIN has the power to give the community the tools it needs to force
aggregation (if the community decides they want)- even if it isn't ARIN's
own policy.
and there's too many folks
who want to deaggregate for TE purposes to pass a policy officially
condemning it.
I understand limited deaggregation for TE purposes- but that doesn't mean
you have to let people go nuts. 1 or two bits is one thing- 8 (or more) is
another animal all together.
I'd agree in principle, but all it takes is a brief look at the CIDR report
and you'll see that nobody does anything in response to far more flagrant
examples in v4.
So because v4 is screwed up we should let v6 get just as bad?
The time to fix these sorts of issues is now- before it's really live,
rather than later.
-Don
