| 1 |
On 30/07/2020 14:28, Remco Rijnders wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:48:05PM +0100, antlists wrote in |
| 3 |
> <f143bfa0-f0c9-c0da-d160-91183a41a4d3@××××××××××××.uk>: |
| 4 |
>> I don't think an ISP is supposed to allocate less ... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I think your original message was open for multiple interpretations, |
| 7 |
> or at least I read it as you saying there are 32 bit addresses the ISP |
| 8 |
> allocates from. I now see the alternate one and the one you probably |
| 9 |
> intended that there is 32 bits worth of /64's to hand out to |
| 10 |
> customers. I'm sorry for misunderstanding at first. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Yes, a mimimum of /64 is what is recommended (and needed to make |
| 13 |
> stateless auto configuration work on the customers end). Whether the |
| 14 |
> /64 you get allocated is dynamic or static, can still depend on the |
| 15 |
> ISP's practises and business model. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
No problem. Many people aren't native English speakers (and I can get a |
| 18 |
little bit hot under the collar when Americans claim to speak English |
| 19 |
:-) so I have no problem with mis-understandings. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Besides English I speak three other languages ranging from "get by" to |
| 22 |
"struggling", so I well understand all the problems caused by implicit |
| 23 |
nuances, differences in grammar, different mind-sets etc :-) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Cheers, |
| 26 |
Wol |
Archives