[141956] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jun 14 18:21:29 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.vw207ljftfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:16:10 -0700
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:02:18 -0400, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> =
wrote:
>> That was kind of my point. You are unlikely to encounter such a large =
L2 domain outside of an exchange point.
>=20
> I've seen such large networks in private industry (and governements, =
not just the US) several times. And IPv6 has been designed (poorly, it =
would now appear) for huge "LAN"s -- LANs are supposed to be /64, after =
all.
>=20
> One of them "had" to have such stupid large L2 domains because they =
used RIP (v1) EVERYWHERE. (all networks had to be /22's) They made a =
god aweful mess trying to switch to OSPF, got fined by a three letter =
regulatory agency, and are probably still running RIPv1 to this day.
The point of /64 is to support automatic configuration and incredibly =
sparse host addressing.
It is not intended to create stupidly large broadcast domains.
A /22 is probably about the upper limit of a sane broadcast domain, but, =
even with a /22
or 1022 nodes max, each sending a packet every 10 seconds you don't get =
to 100s of PPS,
you get 102.2pps.
Owen
