[121743] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TJ)
Tue Jan 26 08:38:01 2010
From: "TJ" <trejrco@gmail.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100126143657.2271062f@opy.nosense.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:37:44 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Smith
> [mailto:nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 23:07
> To: TJ
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
<<SNIP>>
> > I didn't realize "human friendly" was even a nominal design
> consideration,
> > especially as different humans have different tolerances for defining
> > "friendly" :)
> >
>
> This from people who can probably do decimal to binary conversion
> and back again for IPv4 subnetting in their head and are proud of
> it. Surely IPv6 hex to binary and back again can be the new party
> trick? :-)
Hex-Binary-Decimal, and permutations thereof - always a great party trick
... if you hang out at the right parties!
/TJ
