nanog mailing list archives
Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?
From: Willy Manga <willym () manbene net>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 19:33:04 +0400
Hi, On 15/05/2024 16:00, nanog-request () nanog org wrote:
Message: 10 Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 19:52:43 +0000 From: Adam Thompson<athompson () merlin mb ca> To: nanog<nanog () nanog org> Subject: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Message-ID: <YT3PR01MB10768B5A9FEFE157A78096F509BE32 () YT3PR01MB10768 CANPRD01 PROD OUTLOOK COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Not an IPv6 newbie by any stretch, but we still aren't doing it "at scale" and some of you are, so... For a very small & dense (on 128-bit scales, anyway) network, is RFC3531 still the last word in IPv6 allocation strategies?
You can read this article [1] . It's a more 'contemporary' approach.1. https://www.daryllswer.com/ipv6-architecture-and-subnetting-guide-for-network-engineers-and-operators/
-- Willy Manga
Current thread:
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?, (continued)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? William Herrin (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Nicolas VUILLERMET (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Adam Thompson (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Michel Blais (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? William Herrin (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Jay Acuna (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Mel Beckman (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? William Herrin (May 16)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Mel Beckman (May 16)