nanog mailing list archives
Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
From: Harald Koch <chk () pobox com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:55:40 -0500
On 20 December 2017 at 13:23, Mike <mike-nanog () tiedyenetworks com> wrote:
in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6, due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices, you are told to "just use a /64' for your point to points.
There are 2^64 *networks* available in IPv6. That's 2^32 times as many *networks* as there are IPv4 *addresses*. That doesn't mean twice as many; that means almost 4.3 BILLION times as many. Yeah, go ahead and use a /64 for your point-to-point networks. Or don't; there are ways to use /128s carved out of a single /64 (I do so on my private VPNs), and then route the whole /64 to my VPN concentrator). -- Harald
Current thread:
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too, (continued)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Jason Iannone (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too ops . lists (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Christopher Morrow (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Jima (Dec 22)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Jimmy Hess (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Joe Maimon (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too valdis . kletnieks (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too George Metz (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Joe Maimon (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Harald Koch (Dec 20)
- RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too Aaron Gould (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Saku Ytti (Dec 20)
- RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too Aaron Gould (Dec 21)
- RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too Aaron Gould (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lee Howard (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Jens Link (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Eric Kuhnke (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Christopher Morrow (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lee Howard (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Christopher Morrow (Dec 21)