Question about IPAM tools for v6
Templin, Fred L
Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com
Fri Jan 31 19:55:18 CET 2014
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Kline [mailto:ek at google.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 10:46 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Nick Hilliard; Cricket Liu; ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de; draft-carpenter-6man-why64 at tools.ietf.org;
> Mark Boolootian
> Subject: Re: Question about IPAM tools for v6
> On 31 January 2014 10:22, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com> wrote:
> >> Not if you route a /64 to each host (the way 3GPP/LTE does for mobiles). :-)
> > A /64 for each mobile is what I would expect. It is then up to the
> > mobile to manage the /64 responsibly by either black-holing the
> > portions of the /64 it is not using or by assigning the /64 to a
> > link other than the service provider wireless access link (and
> > then managing the NC appropriately).
> <wasn't specifically directed at anyone>
> Yep. My point, though, was that we can do the same kind of thing in
> the datacenter.
Sure, that works for me too.
> <dangerously philosophical>
> In general, I think ND exhaustion is one of those "solve it at Layer
> 3" situations, since we have the bits to do so.
> IPv6 gives us a large enough space to see new problems of scale, and
> sometimes the large enough space can be used to solve these problems
> too, albeit with non-IPv4 thinking.
Right - thanks for clarifying.
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin at boeing.com
More information about the ipv6-ops