On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:08:18 +0100 Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Smith a écrit : > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:16:33 +0100 Alexandru Petrescu > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Mark Smith a écrit : > >>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:03:54 +0100 Alexandru Petrescu > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Dunn, Jeffrey H. a écrit : > >>>>> Alex, > >>>>> <snip> > > Well somewhere here there's a paradox. An operator gives me a /64 > telling me it's more than I'd ever need. Which is true, it could > accommodate 2^64 nodes. > Well, if you have an alernative providers that will give you /48s (or maybe /56s - I don't really like them, because now there's two allocation sizes instead of the single /48 size, but they're still far better than being given a single /64), give them your business instead. The single /64 operator is being excessively and unnecessarily conservative with IPv6 address space. You shouldn't have to work around their unnecessary IPv6 address space constraints, and neither should equipment vendors or the IETF. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
