SV: SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Previous message (by thread): SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): SV: SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Fri Apr 8 22:36:45 CEST 2005
-----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] På vegne av Jon Lawrence >While I understand and accept your argument here, whether we'd ever run out >of >address space imho has nothing to do with /48's. How many /32's have we got >to play with ( 536870912 per /3 by my calculations) OK, that's still a big >number. But if we allow everyone who wants to multihome a /32, there is the >possibility that we could run out - not in the near future that's for sure. FYI: There are LIRs with larger prefixes than /32 (/19, /20, /23++) because they argued that 65536 /48s wasn't enough. Expect more of these larger allocations. Cheers, Joergen Hovland ENK
- Previous message (by thread): SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): SV: SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]