nanog mailing list archives
Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 19:24:46 -0500
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 17:50:54 -0500, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon () orthanc ca> wrote:
IPv6 prefixes are not databases. Coding this sort of thing into your address space is silly.
And a 2^64 LAN, or ptp link, isn't? People have been doing this for decades. They did it before NAT! NAT just made it that much easier. This practice, no matter how silly, is not going to die.
Current thread:
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too, (continued)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Brock Tice (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too valdis . kletnieks (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too valdis . kletnieks (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Ricky Beam (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too bzs (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too bzs (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Large Hadron Collider (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too valdis . kletnieks (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too sthaug (Dec 29)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 29)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Nick Hilliard (Dec 29)