[148019] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Misconceptions, was: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Dec 29 19:28:13 2011
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:30:16 +0900."
<4EFCE9F8.2040604@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:26:42 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1325204801_3579P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:30:16 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> IGP is the way for routers advertise their existence,
> though, in this simplest case, an incomplete proxy of
> relying on a default router works correctly.
Which is sufficient for 99.8% of hosts out there.
> Beyond that, if there are multiple routers, having a default
> router and relying
Yes yes we know, and we've understood this for a quarter century or so. My
disagreement is that even though 99.8% of machines *don't* have multiple
routers, you seem to be pedantically insisting that some sort of IGP is
mandatory for *all* end hosts, even though only 0.2% or so will actually see
any benefit at all..
--==_Exmh_1325204801_3579P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFO/QVBcC3lWbTT17ARAqkkAKDXuQQ2mlk2OgQDHbBqoOlkSZBvkACgy5T4
5eJ6nkwaFdGjB0j7X5Zr4D0=
=LmaW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1325204801_3579P--
