[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

Thanks... Twas a tounge in cheek comment on me part!  :-)) And in fact

Still, I fail to see the logic of /48 and /64 (obviously aggreagation was behind this but why these numbers).. Though that's outside the scope of this thread.

S

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
> Sent: It-Tnejn, 12 ta' Ġunju 2006 15:25
> To: Stephen Camilleri
> Cc: David Conrad; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 
> 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and 
> Assignment Policy)
> 
> On 6/12/06, Stefan Camilleri <stefan.camilleri at maltanet.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> > some sort of fantasy plan for 200 /48's (and who came up 
> with this /48 
> > assinment chunk anyway???)
> 
> These are IETF recommendations IIRC.
> 
> <snip>
> >
> > Funny but in my ignorance I am unaware of IPv6 Forum cool 
> aid or whatever ...
> > Where was routing scalability not addressed may I ask.
> 
> IETF set the above recomendations for the reasons of 
> aggregation (and hence routing scalability).
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
>