W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Application protocols and Address Translation

From: Simon Lyall <simon@darkmere.gen.nz>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 08:48:27 +1300 (NZDT)
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
cc: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>, <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0212030841060.5307-100000@green.darkmere.gen.nz>

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Tony Hansen wrote:
> Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> > Why /24, for goodness sake? Surely /64 is big enough for any organisation
> > that's going to be connecting through this kind of ISP?
>
> Pick a number. At this time, it's an academic point.

People have picked numbers, and one of them is a minimum /48 for end users
(ie home dialup).

See RFC 3177

also:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html
http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html

I'm not sure this discussion is entirely on topic for this list.

-- 
Simon J. Lyall.  |   Very  Busy   |   Mail: simon@darkmere.gen.nz
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 14:49:57 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 24 February 2004 19:46:24 EST