[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 ]
Marc van Selm
marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int
Fri Jun 9 08:09:50 CEST 2006
On Thursday 08 June 2006 12:25, Carlos Friacas wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, David Conrad wrote: > > Can you identify an organization that does not want to avoid renumbering > > or which might not identify a need to be multihomed? > > Yes!!! ...there are a lot of clueless people around ;-) > > > I have a couple of LANs at my house. A /48 for each LAN sounds > > reasonable to me. Does that justify an IPv6 /32? I think the /32 came from the standard filtering "rule" that some people adopt. Although I see the rationale for enforcing aggregation I wonder if the generic rule to block anything that is smaller holds ground and is that useful. -- Marc van Selm NATO C3 Agency CIS Division E-mail: marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int (PGP capable)
- 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 ]