[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Stefan Camilleri
stefan.camilleri at maltanet.net
Mon Jun 12 15:35:53 CEST 2006
Thanks... Twas a tounge in cheek comment on me part! :-)) And in fact Still, I fail to see the logic of /48 and /64 (obviously aggreagation was behind this but why these numbers).. Though that's outside the scope of this thread. S > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: It-Tnejn, 12 ta' Ġunju 2006 15:25 > To: Stephen Camilleri > Cc: David Conrad; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] > 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and > Assignment Policy) > > On 6/12/06, Stefan Camilleri <stefan.camilleri at maltanet.net> wrote: > <snip> > > > some sort of fantasy plan for 200 /48's (and who came up > with this /48 > > assinment chunk anyway???) > > These are IETF recommendations IIRC. > > <snip> > > > > Funny but in my ignorance I am unaware of IPv6 Forum cool > aid or whatever ... > > Where was routing scalability not addressed may I ask. > > IETF set the above recomendations for the reasons of > aggregation (and hence routing scalability). > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]