|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 02:16:16 +0000 (GMT) From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com> In-reply-to: <95315EC0-D2D9-4018-BD18-83612A7A575A@cisco.com> To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>, nanog@merit.edu Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote: > > actually, no, I could compare a /48 to a class A. > (someone might already have asked this, but...) why /48? Perhaps it's the convenience of it all, but I was pretty much willing to 'accept' the listing as bill/randy had laid it out (accept the wording i suppose) > On Nov 2, 2005, at 3:51 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > > > > er.. would this be a poor characterization of the IPv6 addressing > > architecture which is encouraged by the IETF and the various RIR > > members? > > > > class A == /32 > > class B == /48 > > class C == /56 > > hostroute == /64 > > > > (and just think of all that spam than can originate from all those > > "loose" IP addresses in that /64 for your local SMTP server!!! Yummy) > > > > -- Oat Willie > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already > tomorrow in Australia." (Charles Schulz ) >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |