nanog mailing list archives
Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
From: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:37:47 -0500
On 9/27/2013 1:10 AM, Ryan McIntosh wrote:
I don't respond to many of these threads but I have to say I've contested this one too only to have to beaten into my head that a /64 is "appropriate".. it still hasn't stuck, but unfortunately rfc's for other protocols depend on the blocks to now be a /64.. It's a waste, even if we're "planning for the future", no one house needs a /64 sitting on their lan.. or at least none I can sensibly think of o_O.
Are you accounting for connections to your refrigerator, water heater, razor, vibrator, and on down to list so the gubermint can tell they when you can use power for them?
-- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Current thread:
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Eric A Louie (Sep 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Larry Sheldon (Sep 30)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Ryan McIntosh (Oct 01)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size bmanning (Oct 01)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Owen DeLong (Oct 01)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Cutler James R (Oct 01)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Ryan McIntosh (Oct 01)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Rob Seastrom (Oct 01)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size William Herrin (Oct 01)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Owen DeLong (Oct 01)
- RE: minimum IPv6 announcement size Leo Vegoda (Oct 01)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size William Herrin (Oct 01)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Scott Weeks (Oct 01)