North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum

  • From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
  • Date: Mon Aug 18 17:35:47 2008

On 18 aug 2008, at 23:28, Justin M. Streiner wrote:

I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space. My
earlier comments were focused on network infrastructure comprised of mainly
point-to-point links with statically assigned interface addresses. In that case, provisioning point-to-point links much larger than a / 126, or at the maximum a /120 seems rather wasteful and doesn't make much sense.

Well, the choice is really between /64 or not-/64. If the latter, you can number all your point-to-point links from a single /64 whether you give them a /96 or a /127. I recommend /112 because that way the subnet boundary falls on a colon. /120 or longer has some potential issues that are too boring to explain for the 50th time.


But since IPv6 routing protocols work on link locals, you really don't need _any_ global addresses on your point-to-point links...