[97097] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Advertisements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris L. Morrow)
Fri Jun 1 08:59:09 2007
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:58:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@verizonbusiness.com>
In-reply-to: <0B7EA632-2D91-4D88-8CB3-636DDE255F8C@muada.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: "<michael.dillon@bt.com>" <michael.dillon@bt.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 1-jun-2007, at 10:09, <michael.dillon@bt.com>
> <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe that a separate /48 per site is better regardless of whether
> > or not the company has contracted with a single ISP for all sites, or
> > not. As far as I am concerned if there is a separate access circuit,
> > then it is a site and it deserves its own /48 assignment/allocation.
>
> So aggregation is no longer a goal?
why do you say that? he COULD mean that they should get their ip
assignment from their provider, which would/should aggregate for him...
right?
