[137619] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Thu Feb 17 12:54:29 2011
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for
abuse reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik2Tp5m6YewLDxgoAs_q7g2Esok5X_E3hda4VSK@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:51:28 -0500
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>> 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>
> Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
> packet like this.
So, it won't work for you. Is there any reason that it shouldn't
be defined as unicast or private use (with warnings) rather than
"Future Use", so that those who might have a use for it can do so?
/John
