nanog mailing list archives
RE: IPv6 Addressing Help
From: "Ray Burkholder" <ray () oneunified net>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:46:45 -0300
Why is is necessary insist that using bits in a fashion that doesn't require that growth be predicated on requests for additional resources be considered wasteful?
Don't we still need to subnet in a reasonably small fashion in order to contain broadcasts, ill-behaved machines, and other regular discovery crap that exists on any given segment? And if we have to segment in such a fashion, the request and allocation of additional resources is a natural consequence of such containment. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Current thread:
- RE: IPv6 Addressing Help, (continued)
- RE: IPv6 Addressing Help Skeeve Stevens (Aug 16)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help Celeste Anderson (Aug 14)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help steve ulrich (Aug 14)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help William Herrin (Aug 14)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help Jeroen Massar (Aug 14)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help William Herrin (Aug 14)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help trejrco (Aug 14)
- Re: IPv6 Addressing Help William Herrin (Aug 14)
- 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 Jeroen Massar (Aug 14)
- 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)