NIST IPv6 document

Thu Jan 6 05:25:24 UTC 2011

Is there any reason we really need to care what size other people use for their Point to Point
links?

Personally, I think /64 works just fine.

I won't criticize anyone for using it. It's what I choose to use.

However, if someone else wants to keep track of /112s, /120s, /124s, /126s, or even /127s
on their own network, so be it. The protocol allows for all of that. If vendors build stuff that
depends on /64, that stuff is technically broken and it's between the network operator
and the vendor to get it resolved.

Owen

On Jan 5, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:

> 
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> 
>> please explain why this is in any way better than operating the same LAN with a subnet similar in size to its existing IPv4 subnets, e.g. a /120.
> 
> 
> Using /64s is insane because a) it's unnecessarily wasteful (no lectures on how large the space is, I know, and reject that argument out of hand) and b) it turns the routers/switches into sinkholes.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
> 
> Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid, with millions
> of bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural integrity, but
> just done by brute force and thousands of slaves.
> 
> 			  -- Alan Kay
> 