nanog mailing list archives
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:51:52 +0000
the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest of organisations.That would, indeed, work if we weren't short of class B networks to assign.Would you clarify? Seriously?
we used to think we were not short of class B networks randy
Current thread:
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links, (continued)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links TJ (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Tim Durack (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Christopher Morrow (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Andrews (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Randy Bush (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Owen DeLong (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Randy Bush (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Andrews (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Nathan Ward (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Larry Sheldon (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Owen DeLong (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Tim Durack (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Christopher Morrow (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Tim Durack (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Seth Mattinen (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Christopher Morrow (Jan 26)