Hi, > And I'd like to set an appointment with all of them in let's say 20/30 years > from now and talk about it again. > > If you could go back in time and ask the guys that planned the IPv4 why > didn't they do it larger they would tell you there is no way we'll ever need > more than that, right? > We're now facing the same situation, we can't even imagine what can happen in > 20 years from now, as I'm already hearing about giving every milk cartoon a > /64 which won't be recycled. > Think about it, how many milk cartoon we dispose daily? How many IP addresses > are in a /64? Now start making the math and you'll see that the astronomic > and virtually endless range starts to slowly shrink... > But hey, I'm used to be the "crazy guy" that alerts about nothing and then a > few years later say "I told you..." > So who's up for it? Let's talk about it in 20 years from now? > BTW, I will be more than happy to be wrong!
I hear you. its all down to address management - .....oh, and whether your vendor supports THT way of doing things. i know hat Cisco are quite fussy about what type/size of IPv6 address gets used for eg HSRPv2 or for a direct P2P ethernet link alan PS yes, I agree, its silly to waste a /64 on some trivial use...if everyone does it then thats basically throwing addresses away 'just becaus eyou can (right now).' lets revisit this thread and topic in, as you say, 30 years time. though by then i'll have just retired so can laugh at the whole thing..and get called in at huge rates for consultancy! 8-) _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
