[121659] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Larry Sheldon)
Sat Jan 23 21:44:52 2010
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:44:28 -0600
From: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>
CC: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <D7706517-BF0C-4979-A377-9467F26B33E9@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/23/2010 8:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
>> In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like
>> to know what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
>>
>> I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for
>> the link between two routers. This works great but when I think
>> that I'm wasting 2^64 - 2 addresses here it feels plain wrong.
>>
>> So what do you think? Good? Bad? Ugly? /127 ? ;)
>>
> Use the /64... It's OK... IPv6 was designed with that in mind.
>
> 64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond M&M,
> you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with M&Ms before you
> ran out of /64s.
Did somebody once say something like that about Class C addresses?
--
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
take everything you have."
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
