Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:08:36 -0400

On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:37:01AM +0000, E.B. Dreger wrote:

SS> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:22:38 -0500
SS> From: Stephen Sprunk

SS> When a 30Mpps IPv4 box falls back to <200kpps for IPv6, I
SS> don't think "not completely functional" is an adequate
SS> description.  To me, that falls into the "not supported"
SS> category.

Okay, I'll make a fool of myself on-list -- certainly not the
first time. ;-)

Why not use the highest-order 32 bits of an IPv6 address for
interdomain routing... i.e., "overlay" them on IPv4 addresses
and/or a 32-bit ASN?  Yes, it smells of classful routing.  Call
me shortsighted, but how many billion interdomain routing
policies do we really need?

Probably OT, but seems semi-fitting for the thread.

The whole 64 bits reserved for a link layer address thing seems silly, why 
don't we just put some payload in there and make the packets a fixed 
size... :)

Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]