[147045] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Wed Nov 30 22:13:54 2011
To: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:19:51 EST."
<CALFTrnPbNEOyRrPpqUTGqfRR3YK7-hp8A+U=BM=+kqpepHnRhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:10:19 -0500
Cc: Bill Stewart <nonobvious@gmail.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1322709019_3058P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:19:51 EST, Ray Soucy said:
> There is a lot of talk about "buggy" systems that are unable to handle
> prefixes longer than 64; but I've yet to encounter one. I imagine if
> I did it would be treated as a bug and fixed.
What year did Cisco first release IOS?
What year did Cisco finally stamp the last vestiges of class A/B/C out of IOS?
That's how many years it will take to get rid of the last buggy IPv6 that won't
do a 64+ prefix.
--==_Exmh_1322709019_3058P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFO1vAbcC3lWbTT17ARAsjRAJ9jIuAa3Vo5mHwk2Ir9RdppzJLVLwCg1LYL
Ee59MoN/ESb+F9GaJKweWBA=
=fkhC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1322709019_3058P--
