Yes, I think any prefix up /64 needs to work. But why not,
in a stateless NAT66?
Brian
On 2009-03-27 07:15, [email protected] wrote:
>>From my perspective the NAT solution that might be specified within 6AI
>>should be able to deal also with prefixes shorter, equal or _longer_ than a
>>/48 since there might be ISPs giving out such longer prefixes to their
>>customers.
> (A reason for that are the changed RIR policies that allow the ISPs freely to
> decide if they want to give a /48, a /56 or even a /61 to its customers.)
>
> Removing the /48 assumption will have major impact e.g. on Margarets draft.
>
> br olaf
> _______________________________________________
> nat66 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
>
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
