On 03/06/2013 11:06, manning bill wrote: > On 2June2013Sunday, at 15:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> On 03/06/2013 10:31, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >>> The kind of painfully obvious solution, especially when we consider the >>> effects of the much-ballyhooed "Internet of Things," is that we have to >>> allow for prefixes > /64. >>> >>> It's not just home nets. What about automobile nets, or more generically, >>> "vehicle nets"? Are we going to try to rationalize why every vehicle on the >>> road, sea, or sky should also be given a /48, >> Why is this an issue, since there are 15 trillion of them available? >> >> Yes, of course I know about H ratios, but deploying a few billion /48s >> under some thousands of PA prefixes is well within a prudent policy. >> >> Brian > > and operationally, there is no problem whatsoever with all that extra > 'dark space" being advertised - makes a fine environment for DDoS launches. > /48's are a horrible policy - one should only advertise what one is > actually using.
Advertised where? Vehicle prefixes will need to be heavily aggregated anyway, so you wouldn't see anything as long as a car's /48 in BGP. Dark space is a fact of life when you have lots of address space, isn't it? Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
