[141587] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Thu Jun 9 11:08:27 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DF0D25E.9080903@brightok.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 08:07:23 -0700
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 Jun 9, 2011, at 7:02 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
not to disagree how from my vantage point, it's fairly straight forward =
to assign a /64 and then deploy as a /127. that might be considered =
wasteful on the other hand a subnet is a subnet.
>=20
> Jack
>=20
