[dns-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Thu Feb 24 22:09:08 CET 2005
On 24-feb-05, at 21:23, Daniel Roesen wrote: >> And it's extremely wasteful to use 2^96 addresses when only 1 is >> needed. > That's because of people's lazy and stupid habit of derriving policy > from prefix length In IPv4 it's a reasonable thing to do because enumerating all valid prefixes just isn't feasible. > Unfortunately still many people think (or just > copied some random filter recommendation) that filtering ANY /48 is a > good thing, and don't update filters. Hm, maybe the read http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html and saw: 4.3. Minimum allocation RIRs will apply a minimum size for IPv6 allocations to facilitate prefix-based filtering. The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32.
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]