Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

[Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net>]

On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com> wrote:

> NONE of the problems listed in RFC 6752 are a problem with using unnumbered interfaces.

As far as Section 8 goes, you're even worse off than if you were using private IP addresses.

And see Section 9.

My point is that *analogous* issues arise with unnumbered interfaces.  Loopback-only addressing isn't sufficient for 
troubleshooting purposes and other routine operational activities.

> The thing is that we will only use ONE public address for a router. And the router will be using that address for 
> traceroute, ICMP et al. And therefore
> RFC 6752 does not apply.

Again, see Section 9.  *Analogous* issues arise in networks with unnumbered interfaces.  I'm aware that PMTU-D will 
work with the setup you propose.

You might want to take a look at Appendix A, too.

It sounds as if there is an unfortunate shortfall in the budget for your organization.  Personally, I wouldn't attempt 
to build and operate a network which required more funding than was made available in order to implement it optimally.

Doing things the suboptimal way in IPv4 isn't a valid reason replicate those suboptimalities in IPv6.

I wish you luck in troubleshooting an infrastructure full of unnumbered links - I've done it, and it isn't fun.

> What I am mostly getting from the responses here are not much useful, other than a lot of people screaming he his 
> doing something different so he must be an idiot

That is incorrect.  You've been told repeatedly that troubleshooting unnumbered links is highly suboptimal; you've 
merely dismissed those arguments for reasons best known to yourself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

                   Equo ne credite, Teucri.

                          -- Laocoön