nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent IPv6
From: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:58:56 +0500
I had to ask this here a while back, so I can now share. :-) IPv6 addresses are written as 8 16-bit chunk separated by colons (optionally with the longest consecutive set of :0 sections replaced with ::). A /112 means the prefix is 7 of the 8 chunks, which means you can use ::1 and ::2 for every connection. Of course, just because you allocate a /112 (or shorter) in your database doesn't mean you have to use it. You could also allocate a /112 for a point-to-point link and use a /127 (e.g. addresses ::a and ::b).
Still that doesn't give any reason to provide /112 for point to point connectivitiy. Seriously, I'm peering with a transit provider with /126 and when I asked for a reason they said, ease of management. How come Subnetting /32 to /126 is ease of management??.... thats quite difficult to understand. This debate is there fore quite a long time but everytime it pops up I feel so uncomfortable with this granular subnetting. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui
Current thread:
- Cogent IPv6 Nick Olsen (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Mark Radabaugh (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Martin Millnert (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 ryan (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jun 08)
- RE: Cogent IPv6 Kelly Setzer (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 William Herrin (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Chris Adams (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Aftab Siddiqui (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Jack Bates (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 William Herrin (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Jack Bates (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Joel Jaeggli (Jun 09)
- RE: Cogent IPv6 George Bonser (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Chuck Anderson (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Rob Evans (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Grzegorz Janoszka (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 sthaug (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jun 09)