[address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alexander Koch
koch at tiscali.net
Wed Mar 2 12:05:12 CET 2005
On Wed, 2 March 2005 11:32:26 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: [..] > The question boils down to: > - do you require a entry in the routing table > or: > - do you need address space > > Giving a /32 to such a site would be quite some waste, as you will never > use it. > A /40 could be appropriate. But do you really need the entry in the > routing table? Cool. Then we as a transit provider have a problem. Well, we have a handful of customers with /48 and some /64, but that are not exactly that many... 80% of our v6 customers run BGP with their /48 or /32... Alexander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]