[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 ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Mon May 3 09:35:51 CEST 2010
> The third way is easy, and if consensus went in that direction, I am > happy to cut the /36 figure out of the document, but then I'm struggling > to understand why we would need a separate document to RIPE-399, which > recommends aggregation, but accepts there are reasons you may have to > advertise more specific prefixes. Would a modification to RIPE-399 that > just expands on the cursory mention of "this all applies to IPv6 too," > e.g. by adding a few IPv6 examples in the text, be sufficient? yep. 96 more bits, no magic. randy
- 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 ]