[130807] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Howard)
Fri Oct 15 15:35:29 2010
In-Reply-To: <C8DDF8E5.63178%zaid@zaidali.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:35:11 -0700
From: Scott Howard <scott@doc.net.au>
To: Zaid Ali <zaid@zaidali.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
http://www.google.com/search?q=nanog+126+64 would be a good place to
start...
(And I'm guessing you mean that /64 is "awfully large", not /126)
Scott.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid@zaidali.com> wrote:
> SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
> some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126.
> A
> /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there
> is
> some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64.
>
> Zaid
>
>
>
>
