[141625] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Cogent IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Thu Jun 9 15:36:03 2011
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:35:13 -0700
In-Reply-To: <4DF0D25E.9080903@brightok.net>
From: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>=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.
>=20
>=20
> Jack
I actually see that as a pretty good compromise. You could have all of
your point-to-points at a pop in the same /64, you can give them all ::1
and ::2 addressing, and the addressing scheme supports both
point-to-point and point-to-multipoint topologies. A customer with
multiple locations in a region could run a circuit from each location
and they could possibly all be in the same /112. If they want to
multihome to you, they run similar links to a different pop in a
different /112 in a different /64 that is part of that pop's /48. And
the numbering is consistent at the user end. The ::2 site or ::3 site
would be the ::2 site or ::3 from both pops with a different prefix.
Seems reasonable to me.
