RE: [nanog] RE: Stupid Ipv6 question...

["Scott Morris" <swm () emanon com>]

Very true...  But if we are assuming that the ISP isn't the end customer who
may receive an allocation, then who really is the "consumer"?

One has to wonder how much time was spent drunk underneath chairs and/or
mattresses to come up with a rule like that!

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Mahoney, System Admin [mailto:danm () prime gushi org] 
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 2:12 PM
To: Scott Morris
Cc: 'Kevin Loch'; nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: [nanog] RE: Stupid Ipv6 question...

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Scott Morris wrote:

No, nobody ever reads that tag.  It says "not to be removed except by the
consumer".

Which with at least one severly drunk friend of mine, has meant that if you
remove it, you have to eat it :)

-Dan


> Does that mean if we rip them off that we may be prosecuted?
>
> ;)
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf 
> Of Kevin Loch
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 1:41 PM
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Stupid Ipv6 question...
>
>
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> > With the exception of auto-configuration, I have yet to see any
> > IPv6 gear that cares about prefix length.  Configuring a /1 to a
> > /128 seems to work just fine.  If anyone knows of gear imposing 
> > narrower limits on what can be configured I'd be facinated to know 
> > about them.
>
> 64 bit prefixes are the mattress tags of IPv6 interfaces.
>
> --
> Kevin Loch

--

"We need another cat.  This one's retarded."

-Cali, March 8, 2003 (3:43 AM)

--------Dan Mahoney--------
Techie,  Sysadmin,  WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144   AIM: LarpGM
Site:  http://www.gushi.org
---------------------------