nanog mailing list archives
Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)]
From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 15:58:42 -0600
Hi Mans, On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Måns Nilsson <mansaxel () besserwisser org>wrote:
This is a field where v4 next-hops are essential to make things work. <rant>In that context, allocating 100.64.0.0/10 to CGN was especially un-clever... </rant>
Would you expound a bit on what you mean here? I don't quite follow but I am very interested to understand the issue. Thanks! ~Chris -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com
Current thread:
- Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Chris Grundemann (May 02)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Måns Nilsson (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Randy Bush (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Chris Grundemann (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] joel jaeggli (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Randy Bush (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Chris Grundemann (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Måns Nilsson (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Mark Tinka (May 04)