nanog mailing list archives
Re: Stupid Ipv6
From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 02:55:51 +0000
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
Current thread:
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question..., (continued)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Stephen Sprunk (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Lars Erik Gullerud (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Leo Bicknell (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Kevin Loch (Nov 19)
- RE: Stupid Ipv6 question... Scott Morris (Nov 19)
- Re: [nanog] RE: Stupid Ipv6 question... Dan Mahoney, System Admin (Nov 19)
- RE: [nanog] RE: Stupid Ipv6 question... Scott Morris (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Lars Erik Gullerud (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Stephen Sprunk (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... James (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Crist Clark (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Kevin Oberman (Nov 20)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 bmanning (Nov 20)
- RE: Stupid Ipv6 Scott Morris (Nov 20)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Joe Abley (Nov 21)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Kevin Oberman (Nov 22)