nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Advertisements
From: "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () verizonbusiness com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:58:15 +0000 (GMT)
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1-jun-2007, at 10:09, <michael.dillon () bt com> <michael.dillon () bt com> wrote:I believe that a separate /48 per site is better regardless of whether or not the company has contracted with a single ISP for all sites, or not. As far as I am concerned if there is a separate access circuit, then it is a site and it deserves its own /48 assignment/allocation.So aggregation is no longer a goal?
why do you say that? he COULD mean that they should get their ip assignment from their provider, which would/should aggregate for him... right?
Current thread:
- RE: IPv6 Advertisements michael.dillon (Jun 01)
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 01)
- RE: IPv6 Advertisements michael.dillon (Jun 01)
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Stephen Sprunk (Jun 01)
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Chris L. Morrow (Jun 01)
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 02)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 02)
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Stephen Sprunk (Jun 02)
- RE: IPv6 Advertisements michael.dillon (Jun 01)
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 01)