Re: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
-
To: Pim van Pelt pim@localhost
-
From: bmanning@localhost
-
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:35:27 +0000
-
Cc: bmanning@localhost, Randy Bush randy@localhost, Shane Kerr shane@localhost, address-policy-wg@localhost
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 09:27:41AM +0100, Pim van Pelt wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:39:51AM +0000, bmanning@localhost wrote:
> | "we" in this case is me and the mouse in my pocket.
> | and yes, this is tossing the /64 stricture. the house
> | network is nicely tucked into a /112 - although we advertize
> | a /48 covering prefix so it will get transit.
> good for you, bill. you get to do things different just because you can AND the
> world gets to see you adhere to what we collectively regard as good practice.
>
> I don't think I have your /48 in my routing tables. Sorry it didn't work out.
got a target v6 address for me to reach?
--bill
|
