[106958] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Mon Aug 18 17:35:51 2008
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808181711510.12939@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:35:26 +0200
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 18 aug 2008, at 23:28, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space. My
> earlier comments were focused on network infrastructure comprised of
> mainly
> point-to-point links with statically assigned interface addresses.
> In that case, provisioning point-to-point links much larger than a /
> 126, or at the maximum a /120 seems rather wasteful and doesn't make
> much sense.
Well, the choice is really between /64 or not-/64. If the latter, you
can number all your point-to-point links from a single /64 whether you
give them a /96 or a /127. I recommend /112 because that way the
subnet boundary falls on a colon. /120 or longer has some potential
issues that are too boring to explain for the 50th time.
But since IPv6 routing protocols work on link locals, you really don't
need _any_ global addresses on your point-to-point links...
