nanog mailing list archives
Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:18:05 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Deepak Jain wrote:
operational content: Is anyone significantly redesigning the way they route/etc to take advantage of any hooks that IPv6 provides-for (even if its a proprietary implementation)? As far as I can tell, most people are just implementing it as IPv4 with a lot of bits (i.e. /126s for link interfaces, etc).
There seem to be differing schools of thought on this, but personally I'm leaning in this direction at least for network infrastructure. Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I like wasting addresses :)
jms
Current thread:
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)?, (continued)
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)? Christopher Morrow (Aug 25)
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)? James Spenceley (Aug 25)
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)? Jay Hennigan (Aug 25)
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)? Christopher Morrow (Aug 26)
- RE: Native v6 with Level(3)? michael.dillon (Aug 26)
- Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum Deepak Jain (Aug 18)
- RE: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum TJ (Aug 18)
- Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 18)
- Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum Jay R. Ashworth (Aug 18)
- Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum Justin M. Streiner (Aug 18)
- RE: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum TJ (Aug 18)
- RE: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum Antonio Querubin (Aug 18)