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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Tue Jun 13 15:29:51 CEST 2006
> /64 was for stateless autoconfig (EUI-64). > /48 was to make it easier for folks to move between ISPs. Since all > allocations to end sites would be the same size, all that would need > to change would be the upper 48 bits. In particular, this means that moving between ISPs does not require you to change your internal network topology. Since topology changes can involve a lot of equipment purchase and rewiring, this levels the competitive field for IPv6 access services. You can design your network with the future in mind and then grow into your topology. That is not possible in today's IPv4 world where everybody is concerned with not wasting addresses. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]