[db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu May 6 16:43:46 CEST 2004
Hi, On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:55:35PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Gert Doering wrote: > > But even so: compared to the total number of IPv6 addresses covered > > by the /32s allocated right now, your mnt-irt:s on a handful of /40s > > are a good start but won't make a big numerical impact... > > 50%+ does make some impact IMHO. 50% of the inet6num doesn't mean "50% of the IPv6 addresses covered" - and that's my point. My /32 alone has 256 times the number of IPv6 addresses in there as a SiXXS /40 has - and none of them are covered by a mnt-irt: (yet). So in address coverage, the /40s will be "below 1%"... So you need to be really careful which percent values you're discussing over... :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]