[121755] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Durack)
Tue Jan 26 11:13:32 2010
In-Reply-To: <20100126143657.2271062f@opy.nosense.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:13:22 -0500
From: Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Mark Smith
<nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500
> "TJ" <trejrco@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I didn't realize "human friendly" was even a nominal design consideratio=
n,
>> especially as different humans have different tolerances for defining
>> "friendly" =A0:)
>>
>
> 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? :-)
Maybe we can all do this stuff in our head, but I have found removing
unnecessary thinking from the equation is useful for those "3am"
moments.
Given that I am assigning a /48 to a site anyway, and 65k /64s is
"more than I will ever need", does it really matter if the
site-specific numbering plan isn't ruthlessly efficient?
--=20
Tim:>
Sent from Brooklyn, NY, United States
