[121720] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Ward)
Mon Jan 25 18:20:37 2010
From: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:20:10 +1300
In-Reply-To: <9e246b4d1001251150p5be0e8bei941b0dfb2485087b@mail.gmail.com>
To: nanOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 26/01/2010, at 8:50 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
> This is what we have planned:
>=20
> 2620:0000:xx00::/41 AS-NETx-2620-0-xx00 =09=
>=20
> 2620:0000:xx00::/44 Infrastructure =
=09
>=20
> 2620:0000:xx01::/48 Pop1 Infrastructure =
=09
>=20
> 2620:0000:xx01:0000::/64 Router =
Loopback (2^64 x /128)
> 2620:0000:xx01:0001::/64 Transit =
net (2^48 x /112)
>=20
> 2620:0000:xx01:0002::/64 Server =
Switch management
> 2620:0000:xx01:0003::/64 Access =
Switch management
>=20
> 2620:0000:xx0f::/48 Pop16 Infrastructure =09=
Why do you force POP infrastructure to be a /48? That allows you only 16 =
POPs which is pretty restrictive IMO.
Why not simply take say 4 /48s and sparsely allocate /56s to each POP =
and then grow the /56s if you require more networks at each POP.
You only have a need for 4 /64s at each POP right now, so the 256 that a =
/56 gives you sounds like more than enough, and up to 1024 POPs =
(assuming you don't outgrow any of the /56s).
Also I'd strongly recommend not stuffing decimal numbers in to a =
hexadecimal field. It might seem like a good idea right now to make the =
learning curve easier, but it's going to make stuff annoying long term. =
You don't have anything in IPv4 that's big enough to indicate the VLAN =
number and you've lived just fine for years, so forcing it to be decimal =
like that isn't really needed.
You're much better off giving your staff the tools to translate between =
the two, rather than burn networks in order to fudge some kind of human =
readability out of it and sacrificing your address space to get it.
% printf "%04x\n" 4095
0fff
% printf "%d\n" 0x0fff
4095
--
Nathan Ward=
