[routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Philip Smith
pfs at cisco.com
Wed Apr 28 01:04:22 CEST 2010
Nick Hilliard said the following on 27/04/10 21:27 : > > /24 was noted retrospectively in ripe-399 - it had been a de-facto standard > for a very long time. We don't have this convention in ipv6. Well, RIPE-399 came out of us wanting to document what had been our long term "good practices" for the benefit of newcomers to the industry. Hindsight is easy - but IPv6 recommendations are more challenging. If we pick a number, as suggested in the current iteration of the draft, we might well regret it in the future. Which is why perhaps a message saying "aggregate wherever possible" might be all we can do now. (I've already had questions similar to 'how do I do traffic engineering with my /56'.) philip --
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]