[141586] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Thu Jun 9 11:03:36 2011
In-Reply-To: <4DF0D25E.9080903@brightok.net>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:02:26 -0400
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> wrote:
> Some networks prefer a uniform numbering scheme. /112 allows for reasonab=
le
> 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.
Hi Jack,
I follow the reasoning, but unless you attach undue importance to the
colons you get basically the same result with a /124.
I guess choosing /112 for a point to point link is one of the weird
side-effects of placing :'s in the address at fixed locations instead
of arbitrary locations that serve the writer's mnemonic convenience.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com=A0 bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
