[AusNOG] Who's with me? We need to start building the Infinternet straight away.

[Damien Morris]

On 8/04/11 1:06 PM, "Bevan Slattery" <Bevan.Slattery at nextdc.com> wrote:

>> I fear your plan is far too shortsighted. It fails to take into account
>>Cantor's theorem[1]
>> proving that there are an infinite number of infinities, and so your
>>protocol, with only
>> an infinite number of addresses, seems > hardly enough.
>
>Yeah - I saw a doco on that last week.  That'll work out great.  ***On a
>*nog list near you soon***
>
>"I'll use this /infinity for my point-to-point connection under
>infinter.net"
>
>This is as likely, wasteful and short sighted as using a /64 under IPV6.

So we can spend just as much time talking about on public forums then..
Give me a couple days, I'll bash together a few RFCs for y'all.

(For the record, allocating a /64 but using just a /127 for p-t-p is
probably the best solution given the ND issues and amount of IPv6
reserved, which is most of it)

Cheers,
Damien.