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

["TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner () cluebyfour org]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:18 PM
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
>
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> > operational content: Is anyone significantly redesigning the way they
> > route/etc to take advantage of any hooks that IPv6 provides-for (even
> > if its a proprietary implementation)? As far as I can tell, most
> > people are just implementing it as IPv4 with a lot of bits (i.e. /126s
> > for link interfaces, etc).
>
> There seem to be differing schools of thought on this, but personally I'm
> leaning in this direction at least for network infrastructure.  Just
because
> IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I like wasting
> addresses :)

Another side of that argument is operational complexity ... /126's do make
the addresses harder (as a previous poster mentioned) as well as inducing
other potential headaches (reserved address to watch out for, requiring
another route to get to a client's network, etc).  That is why the official
answer is to always use /64s, even on PtP links.  This is one area where the
real world and the IETF don't always agree, and in this case that can be OK.


> jms


/TJ