Benny, > Benny Amorsen wrote: > It seems to me that having a global blackholed /10 is a lot > nicer to the routing table than a lot of blackholed /36's.
No argument about this, but the catch is that this /10 being blackholed relies on the cooperation of lots of people, and this won't hold against pressures to break aggregation. We can't assume than everyone is going to play ball just because we say it. > Perhaps routers have advanced to the state where this is no > longer a significant concern. Have a look at this: http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/j.ppt http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/j.pdf (I isolated that one slide part of a much larger presentation) http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/IPv6%20Transition.ppt Vendor "J" says they can't guarantee that throwing more memory and CPU in the routers is going to be enough. When I design a large network, I like guarantees and not "perhaps". Michel -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
