[83290] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Wed Aug 10 09:04:11 2005
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:00:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <17145.20559.189118.619457@roam.psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: Cody Lerum <clerum@transaria.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> on this side of the puddles, i think most folk use /126s for p2p links.
> this has been endlessly and loudly debated, but it still seems extremely
> strange to use 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses for a p2p link.
jumping in late :) with less than I'd like of v6 experience :) I think the
debate goes something like: "use /64 cause autoconf works!" (and it's in
the spec as 'lan' links get /64's) and the other half is your debate of 18
million billion addrs for a ptp sonet link is craziness (and wasteful) and
/126's work fine since we never autoconf things we are going to ping
monitor.
-chris
