Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>]

On 18 aug 2008, at 23:28, Justin M. Streiner wrote:

> I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space.  My
> earlier comments were focused on network infrastructure comprised of  
> mainly
> point-to-point links with statically assigned interface addresses.   
> In that case, provisioning point-to-point links much larger than a / 
> 126, or at the maximum a /120 seems rather wasteful and doesn't make  
> much sense.

Well, the choice is really between /64 or not-/64. If the latter, you  
can number all your point-to-point links from a single /64 whether you  
give them a /96 or a /127. I recommend /112 because that way the  
subnet boundary falls on a colon. /120 or longer has some potential  
issues that are too boring to explain for the 50th time.

But since IPv6 routing protocols work on link locals, you really don't  
need _any_ global addresses on your point-to-point links...