[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Wed Aug 22 19:37:32 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines
- Next message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 23-aug-2007, at 1:31, Scott Leibrand wrote: > I've heard this argument (in favor of /60 instead of /56) before, > and either would be fine with me, but I still don't understand why > renumbering from a PA /56 into a PA /48 would be any harder than > renumbering from a PA /48 to another provider's PA /48. The choice isn't the one between renumbering from a /56 to a /48 vs a /48 to a /48, but from a /60 to a /48 vs a /56 to a /48. I think / 60 -> /48 is a lot less painful. Once you move from a /60 to a /48 (or skip the /60 because you know you're not a residential user in the first place) you won't have to renumber when you deploy more subnets; only when changing ISPs.
- Previous message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines
- Next message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list