[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
Eugen Leitl wrote:
>> So, I should ask what prevents you from using it with IPv4?
>
> Because IPv4 will be legacy by the time something like this lands,
Maybe. But, IPv6 will be so before IPv4 (or, is already IMHO).
> and because IPv6 needs more bits/route so more pain there.
Feel free to propose filter everything beyond /32 and get
accepted by the community.
Masataka Ohta
- References:
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
- From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
- From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
- From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
- From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
- From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
- From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
- From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
- From: mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
- From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
- From: mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
- From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)