Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

Mon Oct 18 02:37:23 UTC 2010

> From: Warren Kumari <warren at kumari.net>
> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:07:53 -0400
> 
> On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> 
> >> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:56:28 +0100
> >> From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
> >> 
> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> >>>> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
> >> 
> >> must be some blowhard i have plonked
> >> 
> >>> Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a
> >>> handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
> >>> one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
> >>> anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
> >> 
> >> juniper and cisco implement today
> > 
> > Unfortunately, a couple of other router vendors whose top of the line
> > units I have tested recently did not.
> 
> Simple Matter of Programming ;-)
> 
> Please suggest to said vendors that they implement this -- IMO it's
> the right way to do it...

Rest assured that I did so during the debrief on our evaluation. I know
one promised a fix quickly. I don't recall on the other as that problem
was not very significant compared to other issues with that unit.

These evals are so much fun. I had to listen to a sales type explain
that mBGP was incomplete for MY benefit. It might confuse me to be able
to run multiple address families over a single peering session. I am so
touched for this sort of concern. 
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman at es.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751