[130838] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin Oberman)
Sat Oct 16 18:27:13 2010
To: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030."
<20101017004041.7f19f304@opy.nosense.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:54 -0700
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
> From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
>
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
> Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> >
>
> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a
handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
The point is to READ the draft arguments and see why /127s are the right
way to address P2P circuits. Also, you might note the contributors to the
draft. They are people well know on this list who have real, honest to
goodness operational experience in running networks and really understand
that a /64 on a P2P connection is a serious security problem.
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
