[138583] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Thu Mar 10 23:34:15 2011
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:34:05 -0800
In-Reply-To: <C0779DA1-E9D8-4850-B1C7-555AB7210943@arbor.net>
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>,
"nanog group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
=3D
> Of course, it does - you may have many content farms/instances, and
> taking down point-to-point links can DoS your entire set of
> farms/instances, whereas an attack against a given endpoint access
> network doesn't necessarily mean that your other
> properties/networks/services are being attacked, as well.
And I say taking down 10 such farms is no bigger problem than taking
down 10 /64 backbone links. Same challenge. A /64 is a /64, seen one
you've seen them all.=20
> There is no good reason to use /64s on point-to-point links. It is
> wasteful (please, no more about the supposed infinitude of IPv6
> addresses; some of us reject this as being shortsighted and
> insufficiently visionary concerning eventual one-time-uses of IPv6
> addresses at nanoscale) and turns your routers into sinkholes. It is
a
> Very Bad Idea.
I wouldn't say it is wasteful so much as it is unnecessary but the
difference is that everything is pretty much known to work as expected
with a /64 subnet. Anything broken with a /64 is really broken and the
vendor would be expected to get right on it. If something breaks while
using a /127, the doctor might tell you to stop sticking the spoon in
your eye.
