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] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elmar K. Bins
elmi at 4ever.de
Sun Nov 20 12:49:49 CET 2005
cgray at netegral.co.uk (Cameron C. Gray) wrote: > I think even the routing-table purists will agree that 64K routes > maximum size will be fine. In IPv6 it might just work ;-) Address space handout policies were deliberately tuned to be able to give every (valid) requestor a block that would fit their needs indefinitely. Some exceptions will of course exist... Elmar. PS: Don't bet on the 64K... -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 at ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]