On 25-jul-2006, at 22:50, Mark Smith wrote:
Along those lines, I'm curious what you (and other people who
seem to
be against /48s for end sites) think of the "excessive" 46 bits of
address space that ethernet uses, when the reality is that no more
than 12 bits of address space would probably h
Hi Kurtis,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:36:02 +0200
Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 25 jul 2006, at 12.16, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > Hi Kurtis,
> >
>
> There are two problems here. 1) I am pretty convinced that the IETF
> shouldn't be running address-policy for the ISPs. Espec
On 25 jul 2006, at 12.16, Mark Smith wrote:
Hi Kurtis,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:09:56 +0200
Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 16 jul 2006, at 00.58, Tony Hain wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I think that over those 500+ years we might even have solved routing.
In the me
Hi Tim,
> IPv6 PD is between two routers, not a router and an end host.
> Using ISP parlance, the delegating router is the ISP PE
> (delegating) router and the requesting router is the CE router.
The point of router vs end host is really aside from the original
question of whether DHCPv6 would b
Good morning all. AFAIK, there is currently no defined way (other than via
DHCPv6) to do IPv6 PD. It may well be that between a PE and CE, DHCPv6 is
neither required nor desired, but PD is.
Over the past twelve months or so there has been some interest in ICMPv6 PD
expressed to me. I'm conside
Hi Kurtis,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:09:56 +0200
Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 16 jul 2006, at 00.58, Tony Hain wrote:
>
> > Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> I think that over those 500+ years we might even have solved routing.
> In the mean time even for new encap types you
