|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:24:00 -0700 From: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> To: nanog@nanog.org In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=Z0iy4xrSyrD71Jz9gE0JiVUZy5Q@mail.gmail.com> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 6/20/11 5:44 AM, Steve Richardson wrote: > > They have inquired about IPv6 already, but it's only gone so far as > that. I would gladly give them a /64 and be done with it, but my > concern is that they are going to want several /64 subnets for the > same reason and I don't really *think* it's a legitimate reason. Bear > in mind that "legitimate" in this context is referring to the > justification itself, not their business model. > Then just give them /64s randomly from under a single /48. ;) ~Seth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |