[75694] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Stupid Ipv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Morris)
Sat Nov 20 23:19:05 2004
Reply-To: <swm@emanon.com>
From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
To: <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com>,
"'Kevin Oberman'" <oberman@es.net>
Cc: <crist.clark@globalstar.com>,
"'Lars Erik Gullerud'" <lerik@nolink.net>,
"'Stephen Sprunk'" <stephen@sprunk.org>,
"'North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:16:51 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20041121025551.GB13882@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
While the concept of classes has changed, I'm not so sure that I agree with
the complaint here...
Everything I've seen about the multi TLA/SLA concepts always seem to leave
64 bits at the end for the actual host address, so it would be a logical
step at that point to have the ASICs spun so that 64 bits was the limit for
routing tables.
Perhaps I have had the same assumption/misunderstanding that the programmer
guys have had then?!?!?
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 9:56 PM
To: Kevin Oberman
Cc: crist.clark@globalstar.com; Lars Erik Gullerud; Stephen Sprunk; North
American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: Re: Stupid Ipv6
> Just to introduce a touch of practicality to this discussion, it might
> be worth noting that Cisco and Juniper took the RFC stating that the
> smallest subnet assignments would be a /64 seriously and the ASICs
> only route on 64 bits. I suspect that they influenced the spec in this
> area as expending them to 128 bits would have been rather expensive.
darn... and we fought so hard last time we had to expunge
classfull addressing asics/hardware in the late 1990s.
looks like it crept back into vendor gear. IPv6 was -never-
supposed to be classful.
--bill
