[75959] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nils Ketelsen)
Mon Nov 29 09:34:08 2004
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:30:10 -0500
From: Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen@kuehne-nagel.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <633F907E-4099-11D9-B165-000A95CD987A@muada.com>; from iljitsch@muada.com on Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 06:25:52PM +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 06:25:52PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> While IPv6 is still IP, it's not just IPv4 with bigger addresses. We
> have 128 bits, so we should make good use of them. One way to do this
> is to make all subnets and 99% of end-user assignements the same size.
> Yes, this wastes bits, but the bits are there anyway so not wasting
> them really doesn't buy you anything at this point. The advantage of
I believe this is exactly the thinking that produced the
completely pointless /8 and /16 Assignments in IPv4. That is a real waste.
> All I hear is how this company or that enterprise "should qualify" for
> PI space. What I don't hear is what's going to happen when the routing
> tables grow too large, or how to prevent this. I think just about
I said it before and I'll say it again: I believe it is easier
to build routers that can handle bigger routing tables than it is to
tell large companies to make their IP-Addresses Provider dependent.
Or Universities for that matter. Or research facilities. etc.
Nils
