i've heard that too. hardware designers going for the 80% solution. However /64 is -NOT- part of the IPv6 spec. the hardware is supposed to support bit masking across the range.
/bill On 3June2013Monday, at 13:27, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
