[134556] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jima)
Thu Jan 6 23:58:06 2011
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 22:58:31 -0600
From: Jima <nanog@jima.tk>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=_dh9GDSToHJy14dqqxvJ9vexzig7BTs-4MxVm@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/6/2011 4:47 PM, Grant Phillips wrote:
> I acknowledge and see the point made. There is a lot of dead space in the
> IPv6 world. Are we allowing history to repeat it self? Well i'm swaying more
> to no.
>
> Have you read this RFC? This is pretty satisfying in making me feel more
> comfortable assigning out /48 and /64's. I can sleep at night now! :P
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html//rfc3177
I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you didn't get the memo from
Monday. I guess I'll lean toward the latter.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg06820.html
Jima
