Richard A Steenbergen ras at e-gerbil.net
Fri Jun 13 05:08:36 UTC 2003

On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:37:01AM +0000, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> SS> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:22:38 -0500
> SS> From: Stephen Sprunk
> SS> When a 30Mpps IPv4 box falls back to <200kpps for IPv6, I
> SS> don't think "not completely functional" is an adequate
> SS> description.  To me, that falls into the "not supported"
> SS> category.
> Okay, I'll make a fool of myself on-list -- certainly not the
> first time. ;-)
> Why not use the highest-order 32 bits of an IPv6 address for
> interdomain routing... i.e., "overlay" them on IPv4 addresses
> and/or a 32-bit ASN?  Yes, it smells of classful routing.  Call
> me shortsighted, but how many billion interdomain routing
> policies do we really need?
> Probably OT, but seems semi-fitting for the thread.

The whole 64 bits reserved for a link layer address thing seems silly, why 
don't we just put some payload in there and make the packets a fixed 
size... :)

Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

More information about the NANOG mailing list