[121748] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Tue Jan 26 09:55:44 2010
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:54:59 -0500
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <9F92B780-8364-4F86-AD34-10BD10B99F8F@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> No, they're not impossible to exhaust, just pretty difficult.
>
> However, If we see exhaustion coming too soon in this /3, we can always apply a more conservative
> numbering policy to the next /3. (And still have 5 /3s left to innovate and try other alternatives).
>
> Owen
>
Owen,
We have had this conversation before, but I just wanted to put my two
cents out there again.
I dont view /3 as a safety valve. I view it as a possible escape pod
from a sinking ship.
If it needs to be utilized, the entire world has been dealt a large
disservice - something great pains should be taken to avoid. I doubt it
would be an "oops, ime sorry, no harm done".
It should not be a factor to add risk into allocation design.
Furthermore, any allocation holder trying the same trick of reserving a
greater than half of their block for the safety valve in their numbering
scheme might quickly discover that their block is a bit more cramped
than they thought it would be.
For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
Joe
