[134441] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NIST IPv6 document
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jan 6 00:28:19 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <A9AD6DF5-797C-41E3-A0B8-18A4A4DA2791@arbor.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:25:24 -0800
To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
Cc: Nanog Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Is there any reason we really need to care what size other people use =
for their Point to Point
links?
Personally, I think /64 works just fine.
I won't criticize anyone for using it. It's what I choose to use.
However, if someone else wants to keep track of /112s, /120s, /124s, =
/126s, or even /127s
on their own network, so be it. The protocol allows for all of that. If =
vendors build stuff that
depends on /64, that stuff is technically broken and it's between the =
network operator
and the vendor to get it resolved.
Owen
On Jan 5, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>=20
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>=20
>> please explain why this is in any way better than operating the same =
LAN with a subnet similar in size to its existing IPv4 subnets, e.g. a =
/120.
>=20
>=20
> Using /64s is insane because a) it's unnecessarily wasteful (no =
lectures on how large the space is, I know, and reject that argument out =
of hand) and b) it turns the routers/switches into sinkholes.
>=20
> =
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>=20
> Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid, with =
millions
> of bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural integrity, =
but
> just done by brute force and thousands of slaves.
>=20
> -- Alan Kay
>=20
