nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:00:13 +0000 (GMT)
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
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Randy Bush (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning David Conrad (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Roy Badami (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Kevin Loch (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Roy Badami (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 11)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning David Conrad (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)