On 3June2013Monday, at 8:51, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> On 2June2013Sunday, at 16:47, Sander Steffann wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/06/2013 11:06, manning bill wrote:
>>>> /48's are a horrible policy - one should only advertise what one is
>>>> actually using.
>>>
>>> Now *that* would cause a nice fragmented DFZ...
>>> Sander
>>
>> I'm going to inject a route. One route. why do you care if its a /9, a
>> /28, a /47, or a /121? Its -one- route.
>> That one route covers everything I'm going to use… and nothing I'm not.
>
> That is very optimistic. If I'm using 11 /64s in my networks then I'll at
> least have to announce 3 routes (/67, /65, /64), otherwise I'll announcing
> more space than I'm actually using...
>
> - Sander
>
Impressive - you have eleven networks, each with 4294311936x10 to the
32nd number of nodes? My goodness thats a lot of nodes. Bigger than the
Internet, larger than the
projected IoT….. And every single one of those addresses is used?
I'd dearly love to see your technical deployment plan for such a huge network.
Is it on file with RIPE?
Or perhaps you are really only using a single digits of IPv6 address in
that range of trillions of actual addresses? And you won't mind if I forge
source addresses into your darkspace,
just so I can hide my tracks? Thanks ever so.
Pragmatically, much of the IPv6 protocol/application development has
ignored half the 128bit space and treats IPv6 as a 64bit address platform.
/bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
