nanog mailing list archives
Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:22:45 +1100
And /48 was chosen as the site size so that we didn’t have to think about that either. It’s large enough to cover almost all sites with additional /48s to be provided if you run out of /64s. Nothing in the last 20+ years has lead me to believe that these decisions were wrong. In fact NOT following these rules has consequences for everybody else as you can’t policy filter at the /48 boundary without collateral damage. I would recommend that all ISP’s using longer prefixes for customer assignment shorten them to /48s. Mark
On 29 Dec 2017, at 8:35 am, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote: Sigh… Let’s stop with the IPv4-think. Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for a 64-bit total address and the additional 64 bits was added to make universal 64-bit subnets a no-brainer. OwenOn Dec 28, 2017, at 09:55 , Michael Crapse <michael () wi-fiber io> wrote: Yes, let's talk about waste, Lets waste 2^64 addresses for a ptp. If that was ipv4 you could recreate the entire internet with that many addresses. On 28 December 2017 at 10:39, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com <mailto:owen () delong com>> wrote:On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez <octalnanog () alvarezp org <mailto:octalnanog () alvarezp org>> wrote: On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote:On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6, due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices, you are told to "just use a /64' for your point to points.Isn't it a /127 nowadays, per RFC 6547 and RFC 6164? I guess the exception would be if a router does not support it. Best regards, Octavio.Best practice used most places is to assign a /64 and put a /127 on the interfaces. Owen
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too, (continued)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Octavio Alvarez (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Michael Crapse (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Laszlo Hanyecz (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too James R Cutler (Dec 28)
- RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too Keith Medcalf (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Ricky Beam (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too William Herrin (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Ricky Beam (Dec 28)
- RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too Keith Medcalf (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)
- RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too Tony Wicks (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)