[121660] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Galbraith)
Sat Jan 23 21:56:29 2010
In-Reply-To: <4B5BB40C.3080206@cox.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:55:52 -0600
From: Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbraith@gmail.com>
To: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sometimes good enough > perfect
Never know what is going to come along to turn your addressing plan on its head.
-brandon
On 1/23/10, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
--
Brandon Galbraith
Mobile: 630.400.6992
FNAL: 630.840.2141
