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

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.