Gert,
Apologies I missed this bit in my first response:
(Just to point out the obvious - from the early days of /35s I have been
fighting for more liberal IPv6 allocation policies, but it still needs to
be done with a solid technical understanding, and not with I like large
numbers, so get
Hi Gert,
I have seen my share of network plans made totally without understanding for
bits, hierarchy or actual *networking*, resulting in oh, for these 500
sites, we
definitely need a /24! (and oh, for all the electronic passports for 100
million
citizens, we must have a /19!) - and
Hi Gert
Sure, I fully agree with what you are saying, that is actually what I meant
with use common sense. So we add to that and with the necessary technical
understanding.
The reason that I made the statement from this perspective is that in my
consultings I have seen a lot more oft he
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02:31PM +, Silvia Hagen wrote:
So let's go for balance :-)
All for it! Plus good documentation and good understanding of networking
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02:31PM +, Silvia Hagen wrote:
So let's go for balance :-)
I agree. I think a sensible balance may be that allocations /29
are reviewed (as they are now, AIUI) by the IPRA managers and/or
the Board.
There is a danger, in my opinion, that the IPv6
