This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[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
Tue Mar 25 10:39:51 CET 2008
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:10:39PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > a /56 is a tad over 1000 networks, each the size of the > > entire IPv4 space. > > this is a little fallacy we keep playing on ourselves. it is only > usefully true if you think you will be deploying absolutely jigongous > layer two flat networks of O(2^64) size. and we all know that's not > possible. > > or are you suggesting that we all throw the /64 magic lan boundary back > in the ietf's face at this late date? while this would not break my > little black heart, i don't think it's very likely to succeed. > > randy "we" in this case is me and the mouse in my pocket. and yes, this is tossing the /64 stricture. the house network is nicely tucked into a /112 - although we advertize a /48 covering prefix so it will get transit. --bill
- 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 ]