This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alexander Koch
koch at tiscali.net
Wed Mar 2 12:05:12 CET 2005
On Wed, 2 March 2005 11:32:26 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: [..] > The question boils down to: > - do you require a entry in the routing table > or: > - do you need address space > > Giving a /32 to such a site would be quite some waste, as you will never > use it. > A /40 could be appropriate. But do you really need the entry in the > routing table? Cool. Then we as a transit provider have a problem. Well, we have a handful of customers with /48 and some /64, but that are not exactly that many... 80% of our v6 customers run BGP with their /48 or /32... Alexander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]