[166002] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Mon Sep 30 13:17:58 2013
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:15:55 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUQ2i6P+9S_L1skT_vOpVZziUO9pt-ZAKZjBBTZoHuNnA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:27:26AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, TJ <trejrco@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:32 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> >> IPv4 jumped from 8 bits to
> >> 32 bits. Which when you think about it is the same ratio as jumping
> >> from 32 bits to 128 bits.
> >
> > Only insofar as the jump from 1 to 1000 is the same as the jump from 1000
> > is to 1000000 ... :)
>
> If we're on an exponential growth curve, it's the same ratio. Are we?
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
sure... and I appreciate you advertizing all that unused "dark" space for me
to hide my spam return addresses in. grateful you have enough bandwidth to absorb
the incoming DDoS packets for non-existent hosts.
profound thanks.
/bill
