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]/
[ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Thu Nov 26 10:12:05 CET 2009
> If a single 6rd instance is accepted as a rule the end result > of that will be that every ISP in the world with > non-contiguous allocations will be asking for a /24 next, > knowing full well that they're only going to use 0,1% of the > network side of that space, ever. A lot of numbers have been thrown around fairly casually in this conversation, but /24 is a nice one to focus on because everyone understands how many /24s there are in a number space. If we could have run the IPv4 Internet by only giving every ISP a single /24, then we would never have run out of IPv4 addresses. Conversely, giving every ISP an IPv6 /24 is not radical and is not even wasteful given the large number of /24s that we have in stock at RIPE and at IANA. As for your comment about 0.1%, I'd like to know how you calculated that number. In general, I'm only interested in numbers that count /56s (or /48s) and /32s since those are the only ones that are meaningful in making policy. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]