nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 deagg
From: Nikolay Shopik <shopik () inblock ru>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:13:57 +0300
On 20/02/15 12:42, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I don't like where this is headed. There are millions of entities that are justifiable to announce a /48 into DFZ. Do we want this to happen?
rfc6115 have good overview and recommendation. IPv6 clearly need separation of identification of endpoints and routing information to that endpoint. We already have broadband operators who fully deagg their IPv4 space. And just one ISP IPv6 with /32 deagg will take 65536 routes.
Current thread:
- v6 deagg Randy Bush (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg manning bill (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg Jima (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg Brent Jones (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg Christopher Morrow (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg Owen DeLong (Feb 24)
- Re: v6 deagg Christopher Morrow (Feb 24)
- Re: v6 deagg Jima (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg manning bill (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg Saku Ytti (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Nikolay Shopik (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Jack Bates (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Måns Nilsson (Feb 21)
- Re: v6 deagg Sander Steffann (Feb 21)
- Re: v6 deagg Måns Nilsson (Feb 21)
- Re: v6 deagg Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Randy Bush (Feb 23)
- Re: v6 deagg William Herrin (Feb 23)
- Re: v6 deagg Sander Steffann (Feb 24)
- Re: v6 deagg William Herrin (Feb 24)
- Re: v6 deagg Jack Bates (Feb 26)