On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > On 1-jun-2007, at 10:09, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I believe that a separate /48 per site is better regardless of whether > > or not the company has contracted with a single ISP for all sites, or > > not. As far as I am concerned if there is a separate access circuit, > > then it is a site and it deserves its own /48 assignment/allocation. > > So aggregation is no longer a goal? why do you say that? he COULD mean that they should get their ip assignment from their provider, which would/should aggregate for him... right?
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Jeff Kell
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Stephen Sprunk
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Donald Stahl
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Jeroen Massar
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Jeroen Massar
- RE: IPv6 Advertisements michael.dillon
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: IPv6 Advertisements michael.dillon
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Stephen Sprunk
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Chris L. Morrow
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Stephen Sprunk
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Stephen Sprunk
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Stephen Sprunk
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Stephen Sprunk