Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
A /128 breaks IPv6 Privacy Addresses (RFC3041). Every device
needs a /64
to allow this mechanism to be used.
Bob
Alternative mechanisms could permit interface IDs to be shorter than 64
bits, for example 48 bits or far fewer than that. Interface IDs only
need to
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
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
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.
Jordi,
I see situations for assigning a /128 when a unique device is connected,
which is not going to route anything else, but once it has other interfaces
(which is the most common case and will become more and more often) ...
A /128 breaks IPv6 Privacy Addresses (RFC3041). Every device
A /128 breaks IPv6 Privacy Addresses (RFC3041). Every device
needs a /64
to allow this mechanism to be used.
Bob
Alternative mechanisms could permit interface IDs to be shorter than 64
bits, for example 48 bits or far fewer than that. Interface IDs only
need to be unique within a given
I said part of this on the ARIN PPML list but thought it should be repeated
here.
A /64 allocation never makes any sense. The claims about a PDA only needing
one assume that it will never be dropped into a cradle of a vehicle suddenly
enabling various subnets (freight environmental or
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
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 the LIRs. I mean, should they still keep considering that the
customers will be able
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 a
as suggested in previous
emails from
Thomas)
De: Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:11:19 +0200
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ipv6@ietf.org ipv6@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
Hi Jordi.
I've
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
Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:50:52 -0700
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
ipv6@ietf.org
Asunto: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
The operator never should know if the device has a backside interface, so
:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
I tend to agree with this.
I see situations for assigning a /128 when a unique device is connected,
which is not going to route anything else, but once it has other
interfaces
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 11:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
I was thinking in a PPP link or PDP
@ietf.org ipv6@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
Hi Jordi.
I've read yesterday this document, and I'm basically ok with it,
but with
two considerations that I think must be worked out it parallel
somehow:
1) HD-Ratio modification, as it seems
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 IPv6
PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:40:24 -0700
Para: 'Thomas Narten' [EMAIL PROTECTED], ipv6@ietf.org
Asunto: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
I said part of this on the ARIN PPML list but thought it should be repeated
here.
A /64
: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 2:44 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
Here's an ID for consideration by the IPv6 WG.
Background:
Discussion on the more general topic took place at the April ARIN and
May RIPE meetings. A good summary of those
2005 23:44:02 +0200
Para: ipv6@ietf.org ipv6@ietf.org
Asunto: FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
Here's an ID for consideration by the IPv6 WG.
Background:
Discussion on the more general topic took place at the April ARIN and
May RIPE meetings. A good summary
://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt
Thomas
--- Forwarded Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:50:03 -0400
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi Jordi.
I've read yesterday this document, and I'm basically ok with it, but with
two considerations that I think must be worked out it parallel somehow:
1) HD-Ratio modification, as it seems to be an integral part of the
discussion.
IMO, changing the HD-ratio is a no-brainer, and I
]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:11:19 +0200
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ipv6@ietf.org ipv6@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
Hi Jordi.
I've read yesterday this document, and I'm basically ok with it, but with
two
Thomas and Jordi,
I of course share the worry that the operators will start charging
differently different size end-user allocations. However, I feel there
is little we can do about the in the IETF and therefore I would see that
we should not use too much time on this.
I think the only practical
Hi,
On Jul 14, 2005, at 2:59 AM, Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) wrote:
I of course share the worry that the operators will start charging
differently different size end-user allocations.
I strongly suspect they will since many ISPs have already
incorporated address space charges into
)
De: Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:11:19 +0200
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ipv6@ietf.org ipv6@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
Hi Jordi.
I've read yesterday this document, and I'm basically
| 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.
|
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:50:03 -0400
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--NextPart
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title
28 matches
Mail list logo
