[83280] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Koch)
Wed Aug 10 03:05:12 2005
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:02:15 +0200
From: Alexander Koch <koch@tiscali.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <17145.20559.189118.619457@roam.psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, 9 August 2005 14:54:39 -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> on this side of the puddles, i think most folk use /126s for p2p links.
I like /124 a lot. No need to argue, I think, but you can
apply it both on small Ethernet links as well as on p-t-p
links to customers over POS - one linknet size mostly fits
it all, especially if the customer wants some 5 to 10 hosts
only and play with it. /127 on POS links is no good...
Also I cannot help but like how it can be organised with a
brain that still works on IPv4 or so. 2^4 is 16, so ::zzx0
up to ::zzxf and, yeah, the next linknet is then ::zzy0 to
::zzyf, with y being just x+1.
It just seems strange that when establishing POS links with
an all- native v6 providers they won't do it as it *has* to
be /64. I hate this whole discussion just universally by
now.
Anyway, maybe someone could use that in any way. /124 may be
nice in some aspects.
Alexander
