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] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz
jan at pragma.si
Fri Oct 25 12:55:56 CEST 2013
On 10/25/13 12:37 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: > Using bits in IPv6 networks for other purposes is orthogonal to those > goals. > > What should we do about it? > Hey, As far as I know, the rule-of-thumb is to allocate /48 per customer. As long as they don't go beyond that, there's nothing to do :) We had a long chat with Peter Lothberg about that during one of the evenings and we calculated that with his addressing and /29 you could number the whole Germany. One provider. I see no need to change the rules, maybe we could mention the /48-per-site-or-per-customer-or-per-end-user-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it suggestion when writing the assignment plan to get bigger IPv6 space :) Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]