[ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
gvandeve at cisco.com
Tue Jul 19 14:25:46 CEST 2011
Why do you think ND and SLAAC would behave differently in 4000::/3 ? GV> I know just like you it is farfetched, but why not? GV> it just takes somebody to rewrite all ND, SLAAC, DHCP, etc... :-) G/ -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jan Zorz @ go6.si Sent: 19 July 2011 14:17 To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues) On 7/19/11 1:44 PM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote: > I am not proposing a change with respect to existing RFCs; we must to > live with existing /64 subnets as a minimum allocation. > > My comments apply for future networks beyond the current 2000::/3 range > used by all RIRs. Beyond this range all options are still open. I don't think so. IPv6 as protocol applies over all ::/0, not only 2000::/3 Why do you think ND and SLAAC would behave differently in 4000::/3 ? Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]