[135515] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jan 26 04:05:01 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F45EB96-8F09-433B-8B03-6B8E430945C4@arbor.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:03:28 -0800
To: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 25, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>=20
> On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> Specification <> application, as in new applications.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
Is there IPv4 brokenness in the world? Sure.
Is the majority of IPv4 deployed in the world done so in a broken =
manner? I think that's a stretch.
Most people try and usually succeed at implementing IPv4 at least =
reasonably in line with the specifications.
Owen
