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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Mon Jul 18 23:08:11 CEST 2011
Hi, > And this translates to "you have to support at least ~6.2 million > customers with the /32 before being eligliable for more". Well, ~5.9 million if you are giving all customers a /56. But if you are giving all customers a /56 you have 16 million /56's to use. That is a 37% usage of the block. It's already a lot better than the 80% rule in IPv4-space. > Changing /48 to /56 as size-of-measurement is one problem What is the problem? If you hand out /56's to a customer you count '1 /56 assigned'. If you hand out a /48 to a customer you count '256 /56's assigned'. - Sander PS: I do agree with you that we should use the address space that IPv6 is providing
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]