[83305] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Wed Aug 10 12:50:24 2005
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:48:49 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>, NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1B11954B-DF25-458E-B2A7-E3A5FCBEC74E@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> I'm very much oppossed to /56 because it's still more than most users
> need. In and of itself that doesn't matter, but it's also less than
> what some users need. This creates the situation where people try to
> make do with a /56, find out that they need a /48 after all (all
> those /64 ptps...) and have to renumber. I.e., /56 provides too much
> potential for shooting yourself in the foot.
ah... so is there the admission that renumbering in IPv6
is pretty much a myth?
--bill
