[125915] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Mon Apr 26 11:23:53 2010
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:20:10 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <69F9805C-0D15-4610-9BC4-9F6028C265B2@delong.com>
Cc: Tony Hoyle <tony@hoyle.me.uk>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen DeLong wrote:
> Whether they do or not depends on your circumstance and the design
> of upstream networks. They may or may not. Certainly it is desirable
> from a customer perspective that they do not. It may be equally desirable
> from a carrier perspective that they do. Personally, I hope carriers will
> design their networks well enough that changing prefixes at random
> times is not necessary and customers can get a better IPv6 experience.
>
I won't say that it never changes, but generally it has not.
Prefix is 2607:F780:1::/48 assign /60 prefix
1 entries in use, 4095 available, 0 rejected
0 entries cached, 1000 maximum
User Prefix Interface
0001000110D1D32C001 2607:F780:1::/60 AT5/0.14250
I presume it will stay the same as long as cache works.
Jack
