nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
From: Jima <nanog () jima tk>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 22:58:31 -0600
On 1/6/2011 4:47 PM, Grant Phillips wrote:
I acknowledge and see the point made. There is a lot of dead space in the IPv6 world. Are we allowing history to repeat it self? Well i'm swaying more to no. Have you read this RFC? This is pretty satisfying in making me feel more comfortable assigning out /48 and /64's. I can sleep at night now! :P http://tools.ietf.org/html//rfc3177
I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you didn't get the memo from Monday. I guess I'll lean toward the latter.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg06820.html Jima
Current thread:
- IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Deepak Jain (Jan 06)
- Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Jack Bates (Jan 06)
- Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Grant Phillips (Jan 06)
- Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Jima (Jan 06)
- Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Owen DeLong (Jan 06)
- Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Jima (Jan 06)
- Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Owen DeLong (Jan 07)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Tim Chown (Jan 07)
- Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Jima (Jan 06)
- RE: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Deepak Jain (Jan 07)
- RE: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Mikael Abrahamsson (Jan 07)
- Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems William Herrin (Jan 07)
- Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Owen DeLong (Jan 07)
- Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Dobbins, Roland (Jan 07)
- Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems Michael Loftis (Jan 11)