minimum IPv6 announcement size

joel jaeggli joelja at
Thu Sep 26 20:07:33 UTC 2013

On Sep 26, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Darren Pilgrim <nanog at> wrote:

> On 9/26/2013 1:52 AM, bmanning at wrote:
>>  sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
> The foundation of that, though, was ignorance of address space exhaustion.  IPv4's address space was too small for such large thinking.

The first dicussion I could find about ipv4 runnout  in email archives is circa 1983

>  IPv6 is far beyond enough to use such allocation policies.

There are certain tendencies towards profligacy that might prematurely influence the question of ipv6 exhaustion and we should be on guard against them… allocating enough /48s as part of direct assignments  is probably not one of them.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list