Re: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt

David and all,

  Well I am glad to read that you finally after several years of me
and others harping at you and others, that you came around to
this conclusion...  Thank you!

David Conrad wrote:

> On Jul 19, 2005, at 10:28 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > And to be clear, I don't believe anyone is proposing this. I.e., going
> > from a /56 to a /48 would require renumbering, most likely.
>
> I think it'd be appropriate to do the binary split sparse allocation
> approach, but that's an implementation decision.  Given IPv6
> technology right now, I think it would be prudent to reduce the cost
> of renumbering if possible.
>
> Rgds,
> -drc
>
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email protected]
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827


_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6