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]/
[dns-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Thu Feb 24 22:09:08 CET 2005
On 24-feb-05, at 21:23, Daniel Roesen wrote: >> And it's extremely wasteful to use 2^96 addresses when only 1 is >> needed. > That's because of people's lazy and stupid habit of derriving policy > from prefix length In IPv4 it's a reasonable thing to do because enumerating all valid prefixes just isn't feasible. > Unfortunately still many people think (or just > copied some random filter recommendation) that filtering ANY /48 is a > good thing, and don't update filters. Hm, maybe the read http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html and saw: 4.3. Minimum allocation RIRs will apply a minimum size for IPv6 allocations to facilitate prefix-based filtering. The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32.
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]