nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:08:36 -0400
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:37:01AM +0000, E.B. Dreger wrote:
SS> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:22:38 -0500 SS> From: Stephen Sprunk SS> When a 30Mpps IPv4 box falls back to <200kpps for IPv6, I SS> don't think "not completely functional" is an adequate SS> description. To me, that falls into the "not supported" SS> category. Okay, I'll make a fool of myself on-list -- certainly not the first time. ;-) Why not use the highest-order 32 bits of an IPv6 address for interdomain routing... i.e., "overlay" them on IPv4 addresses and/or a 32-bit ASN? Yes, it smells of classful routing. Call me shortsighted, but how many billion interdomain routing policies do we really need? Probably OT, but seems semi-fitting for the thread.
The whole 64 bits reserved for a link layer address thing seems silly, why don't we just put some payload in there and make the packets a fixed size... :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Petri Helenius (Jun 12)
- RE: IPv6 David Luyer (Jun 13)
- Re: IPv6 Jared Mauch (Jun 12)
- Re: IPv6 Eric Gauthier (Jun 12)
- Re: IPv6 Dave Israel (Jun 12)
- Re: IPv6 John Palmer (Jun 12)