Re: Cogent IPv6

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:02 AM, Jack Bates wrote:

> On 6/9/2011 1:58 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Some networks prefer a uniform numbering scheme. /112 allows for reasonable addressing needs on a circuit. In 
> addition, while Ethernet is often used in a point-to-point access circuit, such layouts may change and renumbering 
> would be annoying.
>
> Finally, having chunks 4-7 define the circuit and chunk 8 provide the circuit addressing makes it more human readable 
> and is prone to less mistakes by those who suck at math.

not to disagree how from my vantage point, it's fairly straight forward to assign a /64 and then deploy as a /127. that 
might be considered wasteful on the other hand a subnet is a subnet.

> Jack