[141560] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aftab Siddiqui)
Thu Jun 9 02:59:00 2011
In-Reply-To: <20110609033329.GE24907@hiwaay.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:58:56 +0500
From: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com>
To: Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> I had to ask this here a while back, so I can now share. :-)
>
> IPv6 addresses are written as 8 16-bit chunk separated by colons
> (optionally with the longest consecutive set of :0 sections replaced
> with ::). A /112 means the prefix is 7 of the 8 chunks, which means you
> can use ::1 and ::2 for every connection.
>
> Of course, just because you allocate a /112 (or shorter) in your
> database doesn't mean you have to use it. You could also allocate a
> /112 for a point-to-point link and use a /127 (e.g. addresses ::a and
> ::b).
>
Still that doesn't give any reason to provide /112 for point to point
connectivitiy. Seriously, I'm peering with a transit provider with /126 and
when I asked for a reason they said, ease of management. How come Subnetting
/32 to /126 is ease of management??.... thats quite difficult to understand.
This debate is there fore quite a long time but everytime it pops up I
feel so uncomfortable with this granular subnetting.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
