red Baker
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:02 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Ron Bonica; Pasi Eronen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs
Subject: Re: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes
If the registries are using /56, why recommend what they have t
n
> technical barrier.
>
> Thank you
> Marla Azinger
> Frontier Communications
> ARIN AC
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:02 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
longer than 64 bit prefixes)
Hi,
Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
[...]
> My basic question is: What basic engineering problem is solved by
> proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
I don't know. But I know what problems are solved by using
longer-than-64bit prefixes, especially when autoconfigurin
IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Ron Bonica; Pasi Eronen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs
Subject: Re: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes
If the registries are using /56, why recommend what they have tried and found
wanting?
On Sep 28, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi,
Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
[...]
My basic question is: What basic engineering problem is solved by
proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
I don't know. But I know what problems are solved by using
longer-than-64bit prefixes, especially when autoconfiguring addresses
with stateless method.
Alex
v6 Mailing List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs; Pasi
Eronen;
Ron Bonica
Subject: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes
Folks,
Draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon was in IESG review and there was a lot of
discussion about the recommendations an earlier version of the
draft
had
about prefix l
On 29/09/2008, at 7:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
/56 is a choice currently used by the registries.
Maybe I should complete Brian's sentence:
/56 is a choice currently used by the registries in assessing
effective IPv6 address utilization using the HD ratio, as part of the
process of
with a discussion about ancient history is not helpful.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>>>> Jari Arkko
>>>> Sent: Thursday, Se
OTECTED] On Behalf Of
>>> Jari Arkko
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:02 AM
>>> To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs; Pasi Eronen;
>>> Ron Bonica
>>> Subject: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes
>>
ey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jari Arkko
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 3:02 AM
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs; Pasi Eronen;
Ron Bonica
Subject: v6ops-addc
longer than 64 bit prefixes
Folks,
Draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon was in IESG review and there was a lot of
discussion about the recommendations an earlier version of the draft
had
about prefix lengths longer than 64 bits. The draft has now been
revised
to what we believe is reasonably consistent with
ko
>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:02 AM
>> To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs; Pasi Eronen;
>> Ron Bonica
>> Subject: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon
st
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs; Pasi Eronen;
> Ron Bonica
> Subject: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes
>
> Folks,
>
> Draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon was in IESG review and there was a lot of
> discussion about the recommendations an earlier version of the draft
&
Folks,
Draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon was in IESG review and there was a lot of
discussion about the recommendations an earlier version of the draft had
about prefix lengths longer than 64 bits. The draft has now been revised
to what we believe is reasonably consistent with reality and existing
IPv6
14 matches
Mail list logo
