[75898] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Sat Nov 27 22:04:40 2004
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:04:08 -0500
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <633F907E-4099-11D9-B165-000A95CD987A@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 06:25:52PM +0100, Iljitsch van=
Beijnum wrote:
> All I hear is how this company or that enterprise "should qualify" for=20
> PI space. What I don't hear is what's going to happen when the routing=20
> tables grow too large, or how to prevent this. I think just about=20
> anyone "should qualify", but ONLY if there is some form of aggregation=20
> possible. PI in IPv6 without aggregation would be a bigger mistake than=
=20
> all other IPv6 mistakes so far.
I find it interesting that no operators are screaming that there will be
too many routes, but that all the IPv6 researchers are bringing forth
this view.
8 years too late guys. We've figured out table management.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFBqUAoNh6mMG5yMTYRAvEJAJ0WbwevgKwwhG+1A2tk95pU9sz2eQCfSqAU
l5+Z9dcfOsRi3Wq8XHiu/Qc=
=Tr25
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V--
