nanog mailing list archives
Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI
From: Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen () kuehne-nagel com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:30:10 -0500
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 06:25:52PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
While IPv6 is still IP, it's not just IPv4 with bigger addresses. We have 128 bits, so we should make good use of them. One way to do this is to make all subnets and 99% of end-user assignements the same size. Yes, this wastes bits, but the bits are there anyway so not wasting them really doesn't buy you anything at this point. The advantage of
I believe this is exactly the thinking that produced the completely pointless /8 and /16 Assignments in IPv4. That is a real waste.
All I hear is how this company or that enterprise "should qualify" for PI space. What I don't hear is what's going to happen when the routing tables grow too large, or how to prevent this. I think just about
I said it before and I'll say it again: I believe it is easier to build routers that can handle bigger routing tables than it is to tell large companies to make their IP-Addresses Provider dependent. Or Universities for that matter. Or research facilities. etc. Nils
Current thread:
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6, (continued)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Tony Li (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Robert E . Seastrom (Nov 29)
- RE: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Scott Morris (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeff Kell (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Daniel Senie (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Wayne E. Bouchard (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Hank Nussbacher (Nov 30)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeroen Massar (Nov 30)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Daniel Senie (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI John Kristoff (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Nils Ketelsen (Nov 29)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Fred Baker (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 25)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Owen DeLong (Nov 22)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Chris Kuethe (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Michael . Dillon (Nov 22)
- Message not available
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 22)