nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:13:43 -1000
There is a draft pending in the IETF V6OPS WG (draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt) that relies heavily on the fact that everyone and his dog gets a /48 to justify the reasons IPv6 solves the world's problems that were previously solved to varying extents by NAT boxes. If the /48 thing is being discussed somewhere, that would significantly alter the underpinnings of the draft's arguments.
interesting that, after all the cycles of getting the ivtf to stay the <bleep> out of policy, this is happening yet again. the ivtf needs to wake up and smell the coffee, or become even more irrelevant. people are giving out prefixes as needed, not just the religious /48. randy
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning bmanning (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning bmanning (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning bmanning (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Randy Bush (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Mark Andrews (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Daniel Senie (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Leo Bicknell (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Randy Bush (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning David Conrad (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Roy Badami (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Kevin Loch (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Roy Badami (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 11)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning David Conrad (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)