Thanks... Twas a tounge in cheek comment on me part! :-)) And in fact Still, I fail to see the logic of /48 and /64 (obviously aggreagation was behind this but why these numbers).. Though that's outside the scope of this thread. S
-----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com] Sent: It-Tnejn, 12 ta' Ġunju 2006 15:25 To: Stephen Camilleri Cc: David Conrad; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
On 6/12/06, Stefan Camilleri <stefan.camilleri@maltanet.net> wrote: <snip>
some sort of fantasy plan for 200 /48's (and who came up with this /48 assinment chunk anyway???)
These are IETF recommendations IIRC.
<snip>
Funny but in my ignorance I am unaware of IPv6 Forum cool
aid or whatever ...
Where was routing scalability not addressed may I ask.
IETF set the above recomendations for the reasons of aggregation (and hence routing scalability).
-- Cheers,
McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim