nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:11:56 -0700
On 2012-06-04 17:57, Owen DeLong wrote: [..]
If you're going to redesign the header, I'd be much more interested in having 32 bits for the destination ASN so that IDR can ignore IP prefixes altogether.
One can already do that: route your IPv6 over IPv4.... IPv4 has 32bit destination addresses remember? :) It is also why it is fun if somebody uses a 32-bit ASN to route IPv4, as one is not making the problem smaller that way. ASNs are more used as identifiers to avoid routing loops than as actual routing parameters. Greets, Jeroen
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Jeroen Massar (Jun 04)
- RE: IPv6 day and tunnels Templin, Fred L (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Jeroen Massar (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Joe Maimon (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Jeroen Massar (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Mark Andrews (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Owen DeLong (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Joe Maimon (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Masataka Ohta (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Owen DeLong (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Jeroen Massar (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Owen DeLong (Jun 04)
- New routing systems (Was: IPv6 day and tunnels) Jeroen Massar (Jun 05)
- Re: New routing systems (Was: IPv6 day and tunnels) Owen DeLong (Jun 05)
- Re: New routing systems (Was: IPv6 day and tunnels) Jeroen Massar (Jun 05)
- RE: IPv6 day and tunnels Templin, Fred L (Jun 05)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Masataka Ohta (Jun 05)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Owen DeLong (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Jimmy Hess (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Owen DeLong (Jun 04)
- Re: IPv6 day and tunnels Joe Maimon (Jun 05)