nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:48:49 +0000
I'm very much oppossed to /56 because it's still more than most users need. In and of itself that doesn't matter, but it's also less than what some users need. This creates the situation where people try to make do with a /56, find out that they need a /48 after all (all those /64 ptps...) and have to renumber. I.e., /56 provides too much potential for shooting yourself in the foot.
ah... so is there the admission that renumbering in IPv6 is pretty much a myth? --bill
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Alexander Koch (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Randy Bush (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Elmar K. Bins (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Randy Bush (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning sdb (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Leo Bicknell (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 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning bmanning (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Randy Bush (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Alexander Koch (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)