Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-03.txt ... ULAs of shorter-than-/48 and ULA multicast scope matching ...

[Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>]

Hi Brian,

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:04:17 +0100
Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 2007-03-13 13:05, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > We'll, I've understood that a /48 was sized to be big enough for
> > nearly everybody, and those who require larger would only maybe need
> > a /47 or a /46. A /44 seems extremely large to me (around 1M subnets),
> 
> Well, suppose you were running something like an army of
> one million soldiers, each with a personal network for their
> equipment? One million mobile subnets. I'm not saying that
> is a common requirement, but I don't think we should exclude
> such things by construction.
>

That's an interesting example to think about. It would make sense that
each soldier would have a subnet from within their military's /48 or
shorter prefix(es).

OTOH, is there some other alternative addressing or routing model where
the military could take advantage of one of the soldier's own
individual global and/or ULA /48s, rather than giving each solider "only"
one subnet ? 

Regards,
Mark.