nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
From: Alexander Koch <koch () tiscali net>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:02:15 +0200
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
Current thread:
- IPv6 Address Planning Cody Lerum (Aug 09)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 09)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning kawamura seiichi (Aug 09)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Randy Bush (Aug 09)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Alexander Koch (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Randy Bush (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Elmar K. Bins (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Randy Bush (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning sdb (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Leo Bicknell (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning bmanning (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Alexander Koch (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 09)