Quoting RFC2860 [Re: I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt]

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Mon Sep 27 20:33:00 CEST 2010

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:05:45AM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Tony Li wrote:
> > Certainly if someone is running a v6 network that is not Internet connected, then they are welcome to do whatever they like.  ;-)
> I actually disagree. In the Smart Grid world, there have been suggestions that they use IPv4 and simply re-use the IPv4 address space "because the networks will never be connected". You can guess my response to that - "been there, done that, note the road rash". I think that they should operate as though they might eventually become connected, in part to deal with stuxnet-style issues and in part in case they inadvertently or intentionally become connected at some point in the future.

	this points out that global uniqueness is important to Fred (and me too)
	but that assured / presumed _full_ connectivity is less so.  one could
	presume that if aggregation a core principle, that we would see far fewer
	/24 prefixes in the existant routing system.  the point here is that 
	a routing slot really doesn't care what the prefix size is.  A slot is a


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list