[138610] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Mar 11 02:44:13 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <7EAB7486-5CE6-4D3A-8A78-0CB8B48879D9@arbor.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:33:51 -0800
To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:22 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>=20
> On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> If you want to be truly anal about it, you can also block packets to =
non-existent
>> addresses on the PtoP links.
>=20
> Sure, I advocate iACLs to block traffic to p2p links and loopbacks. =
Still, it's best not to turn routers into sinkholes in the first place.
>=20
>> This isn't a one-time-use of IPv6 addresses and the one-time-uses of =
IPv6 addresses are what should be considered unscalable and absurdly =
wasteful.
>=20
> I don't know that I agree with this - I can see lots of value in =
one-time-use addresses/blocks, and have a metaphysical degree of =
certitude that they'll be used that way in some cases, irrespective of =
what I think.
>=20
If so, opefully from a tiny and limited range. fc::/7 sounds good to me. =
It has few other useful purposes in life.
>> There's a lot to be said for the principle of least surprise and =
uniform /64s actually help with that quite a bit.
>=20
> Enforcing uniformity of wasteful and potentially harmful addressing =
practices in the name of consistency isn't necessarily a win, IMHO.
>=20
We can agree to disagree. I don't think it's so wasteful and it's what =
the bits were put there to do.
Perverting them to other uses and then complaining that the legitimate =
uses are getting in the way,
OTOH, well...
> ;>
>=20
>> Frankly, unless you have parallel links, there isn't a definite need =
to even number PtoP links for IPv6.
>> Every thing you need to do with an interface specific address on a =
PtoP link can be done with link local.
>=20
> Which is why IP unnumbered caught on so well in IPv4-land, heh?
>=20
There's a HUGE difference between IP unnumbered and link-local.
Frankly, absent parallel links, there was a lot to be said for IP =
unnumbered
and I think that if people had better understood the implications of =
where and
when it was a good vs. bad idea and tied it properly to loopbacks =
instead
of $RANDOM_INTERFACE, it might have caught on better.
Owen
