[165955] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Thu Sep 26 16:07:53 2013
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <52448B0D.8030505@bitfreak.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:07:33 -0700
To: Darren Pilgrim <nanog@bitfreak.org>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_8940B5B6-349A-4EFA-8978-09E7DABE94E0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252
On Sep 26, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Darren Pilgrim <nanog@bitfreak.org> wrote:
> On 9/26/2013 1:52 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
>=20
> The foundation of that, though, was ignorance of address space =
exhaustion. IPv4's address space was too small for such large thinking.
The first dicussion I could find about ipv4 runnout in email archives =
is circa 1983
> IPv6 is far beyond enough to use such allocation policies.
There are certain tendencies towards profligacy that might prematurely =
influence the question of ipv6 exhaustion and we should be on guard =
against them=85 allocating enough /48s as part of direct assignments is =
probably not one of them.
--Apple-Mail=_8940B5B6-349A-4EFA-8978-09E7DABE94E0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAlJElAUACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrKa7gCaAunsqij+TrqR+s0zaFY3h/UZ
04gAn1Yl1fsp2SgxVJfFE+P/gp8UO29y
=THz7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_8940B5B6-349A-4EFA-8978-09E7DABE94E0--
