Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8/21/07, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> >
> > I am fully aware of that it will very likely be more than one subnet at some
> > point, that is why the last paragraph was included. Anyway, the important
> > point is that we probably should have two different type of end-users, big
> > and small.
> no.  the important point is that all users need to initially have enough
> address space that they can attach not just multiple networks, but
> multiple layers of networks, at that point.  trying to define the
> difference between the two types of end-users is silly.  the reason that
> IPv6 has so many bits in its address space is to allow for expansion at
> the edges without making addresses variable length.

You missed the point in my mail completly. My only point was that we probably
need to split the /48 boundry into two, one for big or those who ask
for it, they
will all get a /48. And the standard that everyone get if they dont ask for a
/48.



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           |
rogerj@xxxxxxxxx          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger@xxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]