[136642] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Thu Feb 3 18:30:29 2011
In-Reply-To: <4D4B3777.8020800@gont.com.ar>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:27:35 -0800
From: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote:
> On 03/02/2011 10:07 a.m., Rob Evans wrote:
>
>>> You must be kiddin'... You're considering going through this mess
>>> again in a few decades?
>>
>> I'm mildly surprised if you think we're going to be done with *this*
>> mess in a few decades.
>
> I fully agree. But planning/expecting to go through this mess *again* is
> insane. -- I hope the lesson has been learned, and we won't repeat history.
There is not yet a consensus understanding of what the problems are;
that's a prerequisite to avoiding repeats.
IPv4 was patched (well enough) to handle all the problems it
encountered, until we hit address exhaustion.
Some of the next couple of decades' problems may require another new
protocol, hitting a non-address-exhaustion problem.
That new problem could come out of various topology changes, inherent
mobility, lots of other things. It could even come from address
management (we won't likely exhaust 128 bits, but could hit
configurations we can't route). Or from out of left field.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
