Re: North America not interested in IP V6

[Russell Heilling]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:37:32AM -0700, Roy wrote:
> 
> This article seems to imply that North American networks don't care 
> about IP V6 while the rest of the world is suffering great hardship
> 
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/945119.asp
> 
> PS.  Please don't shoot the messenger
> 

The technical errors in this document make me seriously doubt this guy 
knows anything at all about IPv6 (or IPv4 for that matter).

e.g.

"The versions created 30 years ago were 32 bits long. Each bit could hold a 
number from one through nine. Under that scheme, there are 4.3 billion 
different number combinations."

erm...  since when did a "binary digit" have 9 possible values?

and

"IPv6 addresses are 132 bits.  The resulting list of IP addresses is two 
googles long, an enormous number.  If you want to write it, it's a "3" 
followed by 38 zeroes."

Ignoring the obvious error, I don't know what math's reference this guy is
using, but mine says that a google is 1e100, not 1.5e38...

The reference to 70% of people in Europe having a web enabled phone made me
laugh too...  although I guess it could be true - my last 3 mobile phones
have all had WAP capability, but I don't know of anyone that actually uses
this feature.

-- 
Russell Heilling
http://www.ccie.org.uk/
PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 69/8...this sucks -- Centralizing filtering..

[Russell Heilling]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:39:26PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> 
> Oh, I agree that there are times when BGP is used in a single uplink
> scenario, but it is not common. However, someone pointed me to ip verify
> unicast source reachable-via any which seems to be available on some of the
> cisco Service provider releases. It's an interesting concept and I'm itching
> to play with it. If you aren't in my routing table, then why accept the IP
> address?

I've been using this method to do "loose source verification" for a while 
now, and it's certainly better than nothing, but it doesn't really do as 
much as it should when you only receive a partial table from a peer.  I've 
been toying with the idea of supporting strict reverse path verification 
on peering links by using vrfs.  It works really well in the Lab, but 
migrating the whole network into an MPLS VPN just to get some extra 
source filtering ability seems a little extreme to me for some reason... 
;)

It'd work really well if Cisco allowed the global table as a vrf
import/export target though.

-- 
Russell Heilling
http://www.ccie.org.uk
PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature