Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route tablesizeconsiderations

["Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins () arbor net>]

On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> If you want to be truly anal about it, you can also block packets to non-existent
> addresses on the PtoP links.

Sure, I advocate iACLs to block traffic to p2p links and loopbacks.  Still, it's best not to turn routers into 
sinkholes in the first place.

> This isn't a one-time-use of IPv6 addresses and the one-time-uses of IPv6 addresses are what should be considered 
> unscalable and absurdly wasteful.

I don't know that I agree with this - I can see lots of value in one-time-use addresses/blocks, and have a metaphysical 
degree of certitude that they'll be used that way in some cases, irrespective of what I think.

> There's a lot to be said for the principle of least surprise and uniform /64s actually help with that quite a bit.

Enforcing uniformity of wasteful and potentially harmful addressing practices in the name of consistency isn't 
necessarily a win, IMHO.

;>

> Frankly, unless you have parallel links, there isn't a definite need to even number PtoP links for IPv6.
> Every thing you need to do with an interface specific address on a PtoP link can be done with link local.

Which is why IP unnumbered caught on so well in IPv4-land, heh?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

                The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

                          -- Oscar Wilde