[121654] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sat Jan 23 20:48:39 2010
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:18:07 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4922EDF2-FE62-419F-9A5E-1CF021D6E16B@arbor.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:04:26 +0000
"Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:43 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > That's a new bit of FUD. References?
>
> It isn't 'FUD'.
>
> redistribute connected.
>
In my opinion it's better not to do blind redistribution. More control
means less things that are unexpected or or can be forgotten.
That being said, I don't understand why that's a problem, and why that
problem doesn't already exist in IPv4.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>
> Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.
>
> -- H.L. Mencken
>
>
>
>
