[121647] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sat Jan 23 16:44:01 2010
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:13:31 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <498E719C-243D-493F-B38F-3527A57FE966@arbor.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:50:00 +0000
"Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/20788
>
> A couple of points for thought:
>
> 1. Yes, the IPv6 address space is unimaginably huge.
> Even so, when every molecule in every soda can in the world has its own
> IPv6 address in years to come, it might not seem so big.
We'd better start worrying about conserving Ethernet addresses then,
because they're going to run out way before IPv6 ones will.
First thing we'll need to do is setup a registry so that when ever
somebody throws out an Ethernet card, they write down the MAC address
so that somebody else can recycle it. Secondly we'll need to get the
IEEE specs changed so that any point-to-point ethernet links don't
use addressing - we're wasting two addresses on each one of them.
We'll also save bandwidth by not sending an extra 12 addressing bytes
in each frame on 10Gbps or 40/100 Gbps links in the future.
>
> 2. A more immediate concern with using things like /64s or whatever on p2p links is inadvertently turning routers into sinkholes.
>
That's a new bit of FUD. References?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>
> Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.
>
> -- H.L. Mencken
>
>
>
>
