[121880] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Sat Jan 30 01:54:34 2010
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:54:10 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
In-Reply-To: <F6819218-8F33-48E8-A7E3-BF5BCBDD9FD5@senie.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Daniel Senie wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>> For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
>>
>> What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
>
> If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space
> cover? (If we as a species manages to spread beyond this world before
> we destroy it). Will separate /3's, or subdivisions of subsequent
> /3's, be the best approach to deploying a large-scale IPv6 network on
> Mars? (and yes, a bit of work would be required to make the
> round-trip times fall within TCP's windows).
If The useful life of ipv6 is as long as ipv4 we've been pretty
successful. It's is (or seems that way to me) likely that pressures
other than address exhaustion will consign it to the historybooks.
