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/routing-wg@ripe.net/
[routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Mon May 3 09:35:51 CEST 2010
> The third way is easy, and if consensus went in that direction, I am > happy to cut the /36 figure out of the document, but then I'm struggling > to understand why we would need a separate document to RIPE-399, which > recommends aggregation, but accepts there are reasons you may have to > advertise more specific prefixes. Would a modification to RIPE-399 that > just expands on the cursory mention of "this all applies to IPv6 too," > e.g. by adding a few IPv6 examples in the text, be sufficient? yep. 96 more bits, no magic. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]