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 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Wed Dec 2 08:53:40 CET 2009
On 2 dec 2009, at 08:49, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > >> Let's not forget that I will probably announce my 6rd as more >> specifics to aid in load balancing traffic just as I do with my >> multiple IPv4 allocations. So routing table times 8 I guess, if >> we're lucky. >> >> I still find this a really bad idea, like Remco says everybody just >> happens to have plans for 6rd so if they please can get a /24, we >> might as well make it the default allocation size so people don't >> have to lie, uhhh be optismistic, about it. > > If we have separate space for /24 allocation policy then at least I > can filter the de-aggregation and stop some of the madness. Yeah and please make it a seperate policy then with hard words on actual deployment, you get the /24 and have 12 months to show up in google's statistics or you need to give it back. The same as some countries did with UMTS frequencies: use it or loose it. MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]