Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

[Tim Durack <tdurack () gmail com>]

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?

-- 
Tim:>
Sent from Brooklyn, NY, United States