Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security

To: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Subject: Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
From: Bill Manning <bmanning at ISI.EDU>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:17:36 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ietf at ietf.org, paul at vix.com
In-reply-to: <988E4ED4-28FB-11D8-9581-000A95CD987A@muada.com> from Iljitsch van Beijnum at "Dec 7, 3 10:23:26 pm"
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

% > (i personally don't think a /35 route with just one host in it makes
% > much sense,
% 
% Agree.

	/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
	4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
	-might- have global reachability.  IMHO, a /48 is even 
	overkill...  :)

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

Follow-Ups:
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
  - From: Zefram
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
  - From: Paul Vixie

References:
- Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum

Prev by Date: Re: national security
Next by Date: Re: just a brief note about anycast
Previous by thread: Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
Next by thread: Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.