nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Addressing Help
From: Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:03:05 +1000
On 15/08/2009, at 4:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm going to contradict you there. Classful addressing had a lot to recommend it. The basic problem we ran in to was that there weren't enough B's for everyone who needed more than a C and there weren't enough A's period. So we started handing out groups of disaggregate C's and that path led to the swamp.the swamp preceeded cidrand, if you had a bit of simple arithmetic clue, you would realize that, unless you are prescient, you will always run out of some classes before others. as we are very poor at predicting the future, there was no winto be had in classful.
This is really this basis of my reply, so, I'll just say +1Read about how sparse allocation/binary chop stuff works. You get the same amount of routes in your IGP table (or less) but it's much more flexible.
-- Nathan Ward
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help Joe Maimon (Aug 14)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help Joel Jaeggli (Aug 17)
- RE: IPv6 Addressing Help Ray Burkholder (Aug 17)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help Mark Andrews (Aug 17)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help Steve Bertrand (Aug 17)
- RE: IPv6 Addressing Help Antonio Querubin (Aug 17)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help William Herrin (Aug 14)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help Randy Bush (Aug 14)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help Nathan Ward (Aug 15)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help William Herrin (Aug 15)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help Nathan Ward (Aug 19)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help Jack Bates (Aug 19)