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: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Cameron C. Gray cgray at netegral.co.uk
Sun Nov 20 12:23:25 CET 2005

Elmar K. Bins wrote:

>How about: Every ASN is entitled to an IPv6 block. Full stop.
>Then you can tie it to independency of routing and to the rules for ASNs.
>
>Anyone else think along these lines?
>					Elmi.
>  
>

Hear! Hear!

I think even the routing-table purists will agree that 64K routes 
maximum size will be fine.

I'm for this approach.

--

Best regards,

Cameron Gray
Director
Netegral Limited

Registry: uk.netegral

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]