On 04/06/2013 03:44, manning bill 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?
I've heard tell that there are routers that are designed to handle
prefixes up to /64 efficiently but have a much harder time with
prefixes longer than that, as a reasonable engineering trade-off.
Not being a router designer, I don't know how true this is.
Brian
Its -one- route.
> That one route covers everything I'm going to use… and nothing I'm not.
>
> Is there a credible reason you want to be the vector of DDoS attacks, by
> announcing dark space (by proxy aggregation)?
> Is that an operational liability you are willing to assume, just so you can
> have "unfragmented" DFZ space?
>
>
> /bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
