On 19 Jul 2017, at 4:36 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>
> While thinking about it John, there was some discussion over using the main
> facility address in a single SWIP for an entire block that contained many
> sites. Is this allowed?
Albert -
Alas, the only “advice” that I can
On 17-07-17 10:54 AM, David R Huberman wrote:
AT Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80-1005 (NET-69-0-0-0-1) 69.0.0.0 -
69.0.127.255
THE MEDICINE SHOPPE SBC0690030204 (NET-69-0-0-0-2) 69.0.0.0 -
69.0.0.7
When you lookup the specific /29, you get:
CustName: THE MEDICINE SHOPPE
Address:
On 19 Jul 2017, at 11:12 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
> As I understand it, if the ISP assigned you a /48 and individually routed the
> /64s for you, they would only have to create a single SWIP entry for the /48,
> and the street address of your central location (or
As I understand it, if the ISP assigned you a /48 and individually routed
the /64s for you, they would only have to create a single SWIP entry for
the /48, and the street address of your central location (or your
administrative HQ, if different) would be perfectly appropriate for that
SWIP.
I
I would like to give an example of why the current /64 or more rule for
IPv6 SWIP vs IPv4 is an issue for a project I am working on:
I am working on a project to enable public IPv6 on Public Transit busses.
Currently we have a public V4 address assigned by the winner of a State
Government
For the record, I would be happy if this policy stopped at changing the
100% SWIP requirement for v6 assignments to allowing /56 and smaller to
not have to SWIP. However, if the community agrees, I have no issues with
taking additional actions in this draft, up to and including elimination
of