At 08:32 20/07/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In reality /64 is an architectural boundary, even if in theory
it isn't. I don't believe that revisiting this is realistic. And I don't
believe it is in the least necessary.
Dear Brian,
i am afraid this is orthogonal:
- "In reality /64 is an archite
Is it practical to change in other regions?
We had a discussion about IPv6 address management in the LACNIC VIII
meeting in Lima (30 of june 2005) and my reading of the comments of
the meeting is that they are pretty much in line with the
considerations expressed by Thomas in his drafts.
Tha
> We agree to go more liberal when we set the current policy.
> But I still believe that starting of allocating /2x size
> to requesting ISPs who has nothing but only because they
> have IPv4 customer is, I think, too far liberal.
> Is this the sound model that ISP never come back to RIR
> for sub-
Thomas Narten wrote:
Ito-san,
You raise some good questions.
I have been observing the current discussion on "reviewing
the current policies and address allocation practices".
Then, I felt that we should resort what a real issue is.
Why do we need to change HD-Ratio?
To ensure that
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Narten wrote:
> Ito-san,
>
> You raise some good questions.
Thank you :-)
>
>>I have been observing the current discussion on "reviewing
>>the current policies and address allocation practices".
>>Then, I felt that we should resort what a real issue is.
>>Why do we need to c
Hi Marcelo,
| > Many of home routers sold in Japan is designed and build
| > to associate with an ISP's service operational scheme.
| > Currently, a home router receiving /48 from the ISP block
| > and assigned a /64 out of it automatically
|
| How does the router obtains the /48? is this
Hi Kosuke,
El 18/07/2005, a las 15:12, Kosuke Ito escribió:
marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
Hi,
El 14/07/2005, a las 16:43, Kosuke Ito escribió:
Do we like to creat SWAMP already?
i fail to understand why this change would create swamp? could you
expand on this?
I just extend my imaginati
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 22:12 +0900, Kosuke Ito wrote:
> Thank you.
> How many acctual/commercial assignments have been made (or
> registered) in LACNIC area?
See http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/lacnic/
Also for the other regions of course.
Greets,
Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: This is
marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
Hi,
El 14/07/2005, a las 16:43, Kosuke Ito escribió:
Do we like to creat SWAMP already?
i fail to understand why this change would create swamp? could you
expand on this?
I just extend my imagination that we may be about stepping
into the same mistake we
PROTECTED]>
> Asunto: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: I-D
> ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 11:31:31AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> One open question is if this change will impact in the default allocation of
>> /32 to
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 11:31:31AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> One open question is if this change will impact in the default allocation of
> /32 to the LIRs. I mean, should they still keep considering that the
> customers will be able to request a /48 and consequently keep allocating
Hi,
El 14/07/2005, a las 16:43, Kosuke Ito escribió:
Do we like to creat SWAMP already?
i fail to understand why this change would create swamp? could you
expand on this?
Regarding the assignment size, when we held JP Open Policy
Meeting last week, there are many voices saying that
va
Ito-san,
You raise some good questions.
> I have been observing the current discussion on "reviewing
> the current policies and address allocation practices".
> Then, I felt that we should resort what a real issue is.
> Why do we need to change HD-Ratio?
To ensure that we really have plenty of I
| Regarding the assignment size, when we held JP Open Policy
| Meeting last week, there are many voices saying that
| varying assignment size is too much impact on the current
| commercial service not in its network operation but also
| for the low-cost routing devices handling /48.
| Accord
14 matches
Mail list logo
