| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Yong Wan Ju,
> Yong Wan Ju wrote:
> As you may know, I remember we discussed "IPv6-sparse
> allocation" (Refer to
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-sparse.html) in
> previous APNIC OPM but we didn't come to any conclusion.
It might be of interest to you and the APNIC community to know that
something very close to this mechanism has been published by the IETF as
RFC3531 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3531.txt). During the process and
discussing this with many people I have never heard that it was not a
good idea.
FWIW, I would recommend proceeding with this.
However, the choice of the block to be used is critical. In the
discussion about the issues Gert Doering raised (I will send another
email to the list) I did rate the CAP system proposed in RIPE-261 as my
last choice because the CAP prefix (2000::/3) was too big and did not
leave any room to special or unforeseen purposes.
Best,
Michel.
_ ____ __ __ ____ _ _ _ _
| | | _ \ \ \ / / / ___| | \ / | | | | |
Michel Py | | | |_| | \ \ / / | |__ | \/ | | |__| |
Sr. Network Engineer | | | __/ \ \/ / | _ \ | \ / | | __ |
CCIE #6673 | | | | \ / | |_| | | |\/| | | | | |
mpy@ieee.org |_| |_| \/ \___/ |_| |_| |_| |_|
IPv6 Multihoming Solutions
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/public/ipv6mh/