[141584] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Jun 9 10:03:02 2011
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:02:06 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikfVwx15QsO4JD8mjVQi7DNh5uktQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 6/9/2011 1:58 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> 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.
Some networks prefer a uniform numbering scheme. /112 allows for
reasonable addressing needs on a circuit. In addition, while Ethernet is
often used in a point-to-point access circuit, such layouts may change
and renumbering would be annoying.
Finally, having chunks 4-7 define the circuit and chunk 8 provide the
circuit addressing makes it more human readable and is prone to less
mistakes by those who suck at math.
Jack
