[135369] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Mon Jan 24 08:45:57 2011
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 07:44:39 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
In-Reply-To: <20110124131820.GA10465@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Cc: Lasse Jarlskov <laja@telenor.dk>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/24/2011 7:18 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> this results in -very- sparse matrix allocation - which is fine, as long as you believe that
> you'll never run out/make mistakes. personally, i've use /126 for the past 12 years w/o any
> problems.
>
There isn't an increased mistake risk factor using /126 out of a /64
assigned and your mistake factor probably slightly increases just
assigning a bunch of /126 out of a single /64. We use /126 internal
links, /128 loopbacks (these we do streamline), and customer links are
generally /64, as currently we have no choice but use SLAAC + DHCPv6
(thanks Cisco!).
That being said, while renumbering my network, I noted several link
address mistakes. Had nothing to do with the /126 or /64 boundaries. I
just left out one of the nibblet sets, and :: notation gladly makes that
into a valid address. This leads me to believe that using short hand is
likely to lead to more mistakes.
Jack
