[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Florian Frotzler
florian at frotzler.priv.at
Tue Dec 1 17:38:46 CET 2009
Lutz, Discussing pros and cons of two different drafts on the mailing list is a good thing, bashing other drafts in your own, is not. What is a waste of address space in your point of view is a legitimate method for others. Nothing personal about this or anything I commented on your draft. Florian Am 1. Dezember 2009 15:58 schrieb Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz at iks-jena.de>: > * Florian Frotzler wrote: >> That's really funny, you explicitly mention "waste of address space" >> in your draft, trying to bash on the 6RD draft. You propagate waste of >> router memory and all the other funny stuff caused by large routing >> tables, which is really much better than handing out more bits to the >> LIRs. > > Going personal in the discussion is not a recommended rethorical method. > > With an anycast fallback an router operator can safely remove more specific > routing entries which are too far away. The problem is to fix the broken > routers, not to throw away a whole /16. > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]