[121742] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TJ)
Tue Jan 26 08:35:55 2010
From: "TJ" <trejrco@gmail.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <75cb24521001251938t46410418v79729df534e747f1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:35:35 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.lists@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 22:38
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
> >> Once you start planning a practical address plan, IPv6 isn't as big as
> >> everybody keeps saying...
> >
> > It's more than big enough for any deployment I've seen so far with
> plenty
> > of room to spare.
>
> Oh good! so the us-DoD's /10 request is getting filled when?
The US DoD has the equivalent of a /13 ... what is the question?
/TJ
