On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 01:10:40AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > Allocations on non-nibble boundaries are possible of course.. it could > just mean about 8 different almost identical delegations in the worst > case. > > Or are you referring to "Class-less reverse delegation" (RFC2317)? I'm > not sure if that'd help all that much.
My understanding was that 2317 was only needed on sub /24 allocations, though of course it could be used to allocate a /17 "efficiently". I do not think 2317 should be propagated forward into ip6.arpa. The need is not present. -- David Terrell | "When we said that you needed to cut the [EMAIL PROTECTED] | wires for ultimate security, we didn't Nebcorp Prime Minister | mean that you should go wireless instead." http://wwn.nebcorp.com/ | - Casper Dik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
