[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Mon Jun 21 19:30:37 CEST 2004
> I dimly remember that it was *you* that argued very much in favour > of "give /48s to every end site not exactly. i argued against it within the ivtf; thinking it was a bit short. and i was also against assigning /48s to dialu-ups. but when i presented the ivtf position, i presented the ivtf position, not my personal opinion. > "A networks are too big" doesn't really hold - if anything, /32s are > too small. might it not depend on the size of the network? that is a lesson we learned in cidr back in the early '90s. how many times do we need to learn it? randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]