[97129] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Advertisements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Sat Jun 2 10:57:52 2007
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0706011257390.11314@marvin.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Cc: "<michael.dillon@bt.com>" <michael.dillon@bt.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 16:56:57 +0200
To: "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@verizonbusiness.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 1-jun-2007, at 14:58, Chris L. Morrow 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?
I thought we were talking about PI... Obviously with PA the only
issue would be burning through an ISP's space very fast, but with
IPv6 that's not a huge deal.
