[135508] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Wed Jan 26 01:52:36 2011
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:22:29 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F45EB96-8F09-433B-8B03-6B8E430945C4@arbor.net>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:49:13 +0700
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > The correct assumption is that most people will try and usually succeed at follow the specifications, as that is what is required to
> > successfully participate in a protocol (any protocol, not just networking ones). IPv4 history has shown that most people will.
>
> Specification <> application, as in new applications.
>
> And, no, I don't think that 'most people will' - I've seen enough foolishness with regards to IPv4 misaddressing over the last quarter-century (pre- and post-CIDR) to share your optimism in that regard.
>
The Internet works most of the time doesn't it? I think that is
evidence that most people get it right most of the time, and that
misaddressing has minimal if any effect because it is ignored as
non-complaint with the Internet's protocols (both implementation
and operational ones). Usually the consequences of misaddressing are
limited to those who've performed it.
Mark
