Hi Bill,
Well, but not everybody is doing that, some people is only accepting /32
(also /35 because the older policy) and of course, anything bigger (we have
already one /20).
What that means is that just looking at BGP on v6 and comparing to v4, is
not fair, and not provide the right picture.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Bill Manning <bmanning(_at_)karoshi(_dot_)com>
Responder a: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Fecha: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:54:00 -0800
Para: jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es
CC: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Asunto: IPv6 -HAS- been deployed -- yawn.
On Nov 5, 2004, at 17:17, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Noel,
Then you should not just look for data, but compare it. For instance,
when
IPv4 was initially deployed, how much time took to get some "realistic"
deployment.
Also remember that in IPv6 only /32 are announced, so you can't just
compare
it one to one.
Regards,
Jordi
now jordi, the party line is nice, but it is clear that the mantra
"only /32s" is
false on inspection and has -NEVER- been true throughout most peering.
granted, you may enforce that at -YOUR- boundary, but don't presume
that to reflect reality. there are at least six prefixes who have a
minimum
injection of a /48 for the "global" Internet and untold numbers of
others
inside walled-gardens.
--bill
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf