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 ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Fri Oct 25 15:13:17 CEST 2013
* Jan Zorz > 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. Not really, the policy just says that the minimum assignment size is /64. However, assignments shorter than /48 requires paperwork to be filled in, and since nobody likes paperwork /48 constitutes the de-facto max assignment size in all but exceptional cases. Apart from that it's up to the LIR/ISP to decide how much to assign. In any case we've been cheering on folks who "waste" bits on stuff like 6RD too. Shrug. Personally I'm happy to see folks burn some bits if it results in actual deployments. Tore
- 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 ]