[165968] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Fri Sep 27 00:52:36 2013
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 04:50:02 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Darren Pilgrim <nanog@bitfreak.org>
In-Reply-To: <52448B0D.8030505@bitfreak.org>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:29:17PM -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> On 9/26/2013 1:52 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
>
> The foundation of that, though, was ignorance of address space
> exhaustion. IPv4's address space was too small for such large thinking.
> IPv6 is far beyond enough to use such allocation policies.
when concevied, IPv4 was unimaginably large ... /8's were
handed out to networks with fewer than 10 devices. Hindsight
is 20/20.
"those who ignore teh past are doomed to repeat it"
/bill
