[165977] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Ross)
Fri Sep 27 10:40:33 2013
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:40:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
To: Ryan McIntosh <rmcintosh@nitemare.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAEoCk-NNnosVT3FHG9bdKTkcjkO5q+yvJ2MZ3ParNzXgBd3eew@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>,
Darren Pilgrim <nanog@bitfreak.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, Ryan McIntosh wrote:
> It's a waste, even if we're "planning for the future", no one house
> needs a /64 sitting on their lan.. or at least none I can sensibly
> think of o_O.
Okay, I'm just curious, what size do you (and other's of similar opinion)
think the IPv6 space _should_ have been in order to allow us to not have
to jump through conservation hoops ever again? 128 bits isn't enough,
clearly, 256? 1k? 10k?
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
