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]/
[bcop] IPv6 deployment for small residential providers
- Previous message (by thread): [bcop] IPv6 deployment for small residential providers
- Next message (by thread): [bcop] IPv6 deployment for small residential providers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
William Waites
wwaites at tardis.ed.ac.uk
Sun Nov 9 14:11:32 CET 2014
On Sun, 9 Nov 2014 13:54:07 +0100, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj at gmail.com> said: > It's a good start, but could you rewrite the part on "Address > Allocation" Well, yes, that was just a placeholder sentence! But I've made the change as you asked. I'm not sure I agree though, and the reason is not to do with efficiency of address space use but operational ease of provisioning. Operationally, what does this mean? The most common case is going to be a single subnet, so how is the gateway going to know which one out of the /56 to use? Somebody has to pick a /64 to put on the inside ethernet interface. How is this done? No problem *assigning* a /56 but using it is another matter. -w -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/bcop/attachments/20141109/8d3dd94d/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [bcop] IPv6 deployment for small residential providers
- Next message (by thread): [bcop] IPv6 deployment for small residential providers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ BCOP Archives ]