3 May
2010
3 May
'10
9:35 a.m.
The third way is easy, and if consensus went in that direction, I am happy to cut the /36 figure out of the document, but then I'm struggling to understand why we would need a separate document to RIPE-399, which recommends aggregation, but accepts there are reasons you may have to advertise more specific prefixes. Would a modification to RIPE-399 that just expands on the cursory mention of "this all applies to IPv6 too," e.g. by adding a few IPv6 examples in the text, be sufficient?
yep. 96 more bits, no magic. randy