Re: Re:Teredo vs Silkroad

["JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi Eiffel,

I'm not sure what do you mean with sub-ISPs, but probably is worth to read RFC3177 (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3177.txt) and RIR IPv6 policy documents. I guess the sub-ISPs will get also a minimum of /32, as bigger prefixes can be allocated (see http://www.eu.ipv6tf.org/PublicDocuments/deployment_plans_behind_larger_ipv6_allocations_v5.pdf).

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eiffel Wu" <xgwu@ict.ac.cn>
To: <jeroen@unfix.org>
Cc: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:32 AM
Subject: Re:Teredo vs Silkroad


> Thank you for useful information.
> i don't know the allocation of IPv6 address exactly before, now i am clear about it.:)
> 
> A /32 prefix has a large address space, which can divided into many blocks to assign to sub-ISPs.
> From large ISPs' point, i think the deployment of Teredo needs cautious consideration.


**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.