Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

Sigh… Let’s stop with the IPv4-think.

Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for a 64-bit total
address and the additional 64 bits was added to make universal 64-bit subnets a no-brainer.

Owen

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:55 , Michael Crapse <michael () wi-fiber io> wrote:
>
> Yes, let's talk about waste, Lets waste 2^64 addresses for a ptp.
> If that was ipv4 you could recreate the entire internet with that many addresses.
>
> On 28 December 2017 at 10:39, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com <mailto:owen () delong com>> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez <octalnanog () alvarezp org <mailto:octalnanog () alvarezp org>> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote:
> > > On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> > > Call this the 'shavings', 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.
> >
> > Isn't it a /127 nowadays, per RFC 6547 and RFC 6164? I guess the
> > exception would be if a router does not support it.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Octavio.
>
> Best practice used most places is to assign a /64 and put a /127 on the interfaces.
>
> Owen