[off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Wed Mar 26 12:34:03 CET 2008
> True. There are the same number of /19s, /20s, etc. in IPv6 > as there are in IPv4... (I find it odd that some people don't > seem to get this). Maybe a better way to explain it is that there are the same number of /32s in IPv6 as IPv4. But instead of assigning a /32 to a single device, in IPv6 we allocate it to a single ISP who can then make /48 allocations to 64k customer sites which can then address everything in that site including the light switches. As you can see, IPv6 makes much better use of a /32 than IPv4 does. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]