Sent from my iPad
On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote: >> I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 :: >> IPv6 /64 > > Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to a /32 > in IPv4. As in, it's the smallest possible assignment that will allow an > end-user host to function under normal circumstances. No, you could be assigned a /128 and have it function for a single host. However, let's not start doing that as it's pretty brain-dead and the reality is that hardly anyone has a single host any more. Heather has the corollaries correct. > SWIP or rwhois for a /64 seems excessive to me, FWIW. I'm not sure I disagree, but, I certainly don't feel strongly enough about it to submit a policy proposal. I will say that you are far more likely to get this changed by submitting a policy proposal than you are by complaining to NANOG about it. Owen
