[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Thu Mar 20 13:38:50 CET 2008
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:18:52PM -0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on giving > them. > > In general, I agree with those who oppose this proposal. But another > problem with the proposal is that it will lead many organizations to > design their IPv6 network based on a /56 rather than a /48 which is > more normal. Organizations really should think about how they structure > their IPv6 network and only squeeze it into a /56 if they need to. > > --Michael Dillon > "normal" is a very odd way to couch this argument. why not /35 & /32, or the /56 & /64... pragmatically, a network operator would be working in the /88 to /110 space. the massive waste in delegated and unused/unusable space is almost entirely the result of protocol designers who had little or no network operational experience. IPv6 - 96 more bits, No Magic. --bill
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]