[152621] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: mulcast assignments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Shepherd)
Thu May 3 17:34:06 2012
In-Reply-To: <57073.1336077729@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:33:17 -0700
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:38:14 -0700, Greg Shepherd said:
>> > Make sense?
>>
>> Sure, for v6. :)
>
> Does it make sense to be planning new deployments for anythign else? ;)
>
> (Hint - if your reaction is "but we're not v6-capable", who's fault is that?)
The original question was not from me. :)
But even for IPv6 I would avoid embedded addressing and just use SSM.
With SSM there's no need for embedded addressing and again you get all
the security and network simplicity.
FF3x::/96
Greg
