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): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

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

Jan Zorz @ go6.si jan at go6.si
Tue Jul 19 14:17:19 CEST 2011

On 7/19/11 1:44 PM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote:
> I am not proposing a change with respect to existing RFCs; we must to
> live with existing /64 subnets as a minimum allocation.
>
> My comments apply for future networks beyond the current 2000::/3 range
> used by all RIRs. Beyond this range all options are still open.

I don't think so. IPv6 as protocol applies over all ::/0, not only 2000::/3

Why do you think ND and SLAAC would behave differently in 4000::/3 ?

Cheers, Jan

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

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

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]