[address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Wed May 30 11:02:05 CEST 2007
Hi Lutz, Which RIR is that? According to RIPEs IPv6 policy, the minimum PA block is /32 so I was kinda wondering. I need a /96. I can even manage with a /112. (Please let's not start a useless discussion of why you think I need it). Cheers, J -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lutz Donnerhacke Sent: 29. mai 2007 15:22 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again * Jørgen Hovland wrote: > Q: Is it correct that you can get a /26 IPv4 PA block, but you can't get > a /96 IPv6 PA block? Why is that? It's not correct. /48, /56, /64, and /112 are the most common assigments here.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]