Using /126 for IPv6 router links

Brandon Galbraith brandon.galbraith at gmail.com
Sat Jan 23 20:55:52 CST 2010


Sometimes good enough > perfect

Never know what is going to come along to turn your addressing plan on its head.

-brandon

On 1/23/10, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon at cox.net> wrote:
> On 1/23/2010 8:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
>>> In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like
>>> to know what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
>>>
>>> I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for
>>> the link between two routers. This works great but when I think
>>> that I'm wasting 2^64 - 2 addresses here it feels plain wrong.
>>>
>>> So what do you think? Good? Bad? Ugly? /127 ? ;)
>>>
>> Use the /64... It's OK... IPv6 was designed with that in mind.
>>
>> 64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond M&M,
>> you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with M&Ms before you
>> ran out of /64s.
>
> Did somebody once say something like that about Class C addresses?
>
>
> --
> "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
> take everything you have."
>
> Remember:  The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
>
> Requiescas in pace o email
> Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
> Eppure si rinfresca
>
> ICBM Targeting Information:  http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
> http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
> 	
>
>


-- 
Brandon Galbraith
Mobile: 630.400.6992
FNAL: 630.840.2141




More information about the NANOG mailing list