On Oct 16, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
From: Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
Randy Bush
On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:56:28 +0100
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
must be some blowhard i have plonked
From: Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:07:53 -0400
On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:56:28 +0100
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
Drafts are
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
Drafts are drafts, and
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:54 -0700
Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
From: Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:52:31 -0400
Bill Bogstad bogs...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
must be some blowhard i have plonked
Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a
handful have ever been designated as Standards. I hope this
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:56:28 +0100
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
must be some blowhard i have plonked
Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:24:41 +1030
From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:54 -0700
Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
From: Mark Smith
Hi Kevin,
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:13:22 -0700
Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:24:41 +1030
From: Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:54 -0700
Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote:
Date:
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
/126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is
some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64.
Zaid
On 2010-10-15 21:26, Zaid Ali wrote:
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
/126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is
some rationale behind using a
http://www.google.com/search?q=nanog+126+64 would be a good place to
start...
(And I'm guessing you mean that /64 is awfully large, not /126)
Scott.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
On 15/10/2010 20:26, Zaid Ali wrote:
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
/126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is
some rationale behind using a
Bahh had my head turned around and brain fried on a Friday. I was more
curious about /64 vs /126 from management perspective. Thanks everyone for
answering offline as well, I got my questions answered.
Zaid
On 10/15/10 12:26 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
SO I have been turning up v6
Hi,
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:26:13 -0700
Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
/126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if
of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
Hi,
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:26:13 -0700
Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
/126 is awfully large
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:51:03 +1030
From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Hi,
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:26:13 -0700
Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
some choose /64 for
21 matches
Mail list logo
