On 2June2013Sunday, at 16:47, Sander Steffann wrote: > On 03/06/2013 11:06, manning bill wrote: >> /48's are a horrible policy - one should only advertise what one is actually >> using. > > Now *that* would cause a nice fragmented DFZ... > Sander >
I'm going to inject a route. One route. why do you care if its a /9, a /28, a /47, or a /121? Its -one- route. That one route covers everything I'm going to use… and nothing I'm not. Is there a credible reason you want to be the vector of DDoS attacks, by announcing dark space (by proxy aggregation)? Is that an operational liability you are willing to assume, just so you can have "unfragmented" DFZ space? /bill -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
