[175158] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roland Dobbins)
Thu Oct 9 17:22:43 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7Axdok_er7rS3_NR=F-_rjdvf6dxLNnyUOHBg7Yj4JHTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:18:46 +0700
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:53 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> I am not dismissing any arguments, and I am genuinely interested in =
any advantages and disadvantages to the approach.
My prediction is that you will remain an advocate of unnumbered links =
until such time as you have to troubleshoot issues hop-by-hop in a =
network of any non-trivial size/complexity. Then, your views on this =
topic will likely change.
Many of the same caveats noted in RFC6752 apply to unnumbered =
interfaces, as well. That's why I cited it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Equo ne credite, Teucri.
-- Laoco=F6n
