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] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Sat May 7 09:05:00 CEST 2011
* Mikael Abrahamsson > Is there anything else that might be different with v6 PI without > multihoming compared to v4 PI that means current and historic v4 PI > numbers might not be indicative of future v6 PI behaviour? Well, anyone can easily justify the need for an IPv6 /48 as that's the minimum assignment size. The minimum IPv4 assignment size, on the other hand, is smaller than a /24, which means that an applicant would require 100s of devices on his network in order to to qualify for an IPv4 PI assignment that can be actually routed on the internet. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]