|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 07:13:53 -0700 To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Brennan_Murphy@NAI.com From: "Martin J. Levy" <mahtin@mahtin.com> Cc: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <200305301407.h4UE7Be6004836@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu Brennan, If you want your routes to be human parse'able, I recommend running your lab in full IPv6 mode. That way you take Valdis's recommendation to a whole new level (and base number system). Plus... Whats the point of having a lab that only uses 1982/1983 addressing techniques (1/8, 10/8, 100/8 are classfull addresses). Labs are meant to push the limits of todays technology and experiment with future concepts. IPv6 matches that criteria. Martin --- At 10:07 AM 5/30/2003 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >On Fri, 30 May 2003 05:49:28 PDT, Brennan_Murphy@NAI.com said: > >> one of the things I want to do is make it much >> easier to "parse visually" my route tables. > >Might want to use networks 4/8, 16/8, and 64/8 - they stand out >nicely when looking at net numbers in hex or binary. ;) >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |