| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Randy Bush wrote: >> Just to clarify our intention a little more, JPNIC suggested that ISPs can >> aggregate /64s as their infrastructures as they can be considered as >> router interface address(just like /30s in IPv4). > > conservative isps use /126 for point to point links. there is no > actual need for more. as to why /127's do not work, see rfc 3627. Ack'd.I heard /64 is quite common in practice, so I felt we could accomodate upto /64s. Perhaps, we don't need to specify the size and state that assignments to router interface can be considered as infrastructure? Or are you suggesting that any size shorter than /126 should be registered indivisually? Izumi
