nanog mailing list archives
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
From: Scott Howard <scott () doc net au>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:35:11 -0700
http://www.google.com/search?q=nanog+126+64 would be a good place to start... (And I'm guessing you mean that /64 is "awfully large", not /126) Scott. On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid () zaidali com> wrote:
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64. Zaid
Current thread:
- Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Zaid Ali (Oct 15)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Jeroen Massar (Oct 15)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Scott Howard (Oct 15)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Nick Hilliard (Oct 15)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Zaid Ali (Oct 15)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Mark Smith (Oct 15)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Franck Martin (Oct 15)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Kevin Oberman (Oct 15)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Randy Bush (Oct 16)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Mark Smith (Oct 16)
- Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Brandon Kim (Oct 16)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 16)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Joel Jaeggli (Oct 16)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Mark Smith (Oct 16)