On 10/23/08 6:39 PM, "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A properly
> implemented client will do the longest prefix match against that set, so a
> 6to4 client will go directly to the content provider's 6to4 router, while a
> native client will take the direct path.
Not quite.
Say the ser
Paul,
Can this proposal be applied to IS-IS (or other IGP) as well as BGP?
- Alain.
On 7/20/08 8:46 AM, "Paul Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gang,
>
> I have submitted an internet-draft to the IDR group on virtual aggregation
> (VA) (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-francis
On 8/19/08 1:36 PM, "Nathan Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 64 bits is not a magical boundary.
>
> 112 bits is widely recommended for linknets, for example.
>
> 64 bits is common, because of EUI-64 and friends. That's it.
> There is nothing, anywhere, that says that the first 64 bits is fo
On 8/19/08 1:50 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
>> the prefix length is > 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of space,
>> it is not stupid to use /64 for point-to-point links and even for loo
or all models of all vendors.
YMMV.
- Alain.
On 8/19/08 4:22 PM, "Kevin Oberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:30:38 -0400
>> From: Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> On 8/19/08 1:50 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
5 matches
Mail list logo
