nanog mailing list archives
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:23:38 +1030
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:13:22 -0500 Tim Durack <tdurack () gmail com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org> wrote:On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500 "TJ" <trejrco () gmail com> wrote:I didn't realize "human friendly" was even a nominal design consideration, especially as different humans have different tolerances for defining "friendly" :)This from people who can probably do decimal to binary conversion and back again for IPv4 subnetting in their head and are proud of it. Surely IPv6 hex to binary and back again can be the new party trick? :-)Maybe we can all do this stuff in our head, but I have found removing unnecessary thinking from the equation is useful for those "3am" moments. Given that I am assigning a /48 to a site anyway, and 65k /64s is "more than I will ever need", does it really matter if the site-specific numbering plan isn't ruthlessly efficient?
The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest of organisations. IOW, it's meant to be "nearly one-size-fits-all", to try to ensure almost everybody gets as much address space as they'll ever need at the time of their first request. An addressing plan for anything less than the largest organsation that doesn't fit within a /48 or will exceed it fairly rapidly is probably too inefficent. ps. Remember that I'm one of the ones advocating using /64s everywhere, so what ever you do, don't use "ruthlessly efficient" to describe my position - use that for the /126 or /127 crowd ;-) Regards, Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links, (continued)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Tim Durack (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Nathan Ward (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Tim Durack (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 25)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links TJ (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Kevin Oberman (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Jim Burwell (Jan 25)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links TJ (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Tim Durack (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Christopher Morrow (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Andrews (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Randy Bush (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Owen DeLong (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Randy Bush (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Andrews (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 27)