[83291] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Wed Aug 10 09:07:22 2005
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:06:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <787BE581-D247-4A47-8BC7-2D7A9B484DD9@muada.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 10-aug-2005, at 2:54, 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.
>
> Well, if you want to be really environmentally conscious, do away
> with that /126 too and just use link-locals, with a single global
> address per router for management and the generation of ICMPs.
and you ping the customer links how? (or did I miss the point of the
link-locals?)
