[off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [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 17:24:28 CET 2008
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 05:18:15PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote: > Bill, > > [ Apologies for the following rant... ] > > So, as far as I can tell, the "one size fits all" idea is an attempt > to further the IETF anti-NAT jihad, and has nothing to do with > anyone's operational needs. :-( snicker... :) a /56 is a tad over 1000 networks, each the size of the entire IPv4 space. Michaels claim that its going to be a tough "squeeze" to shoehorn an operational network into that small number of bits is enough to make me snort the diet coke out my nose in the morning. Humourous and a bit painful at the same time. --bill > > -- > Shane
- Previous message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [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 ]