IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Roland Dobbins
rdobbins at arbor.net
Thu Oct 9 22:37:27 UTC 2014
On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl at 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 at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Equo ne credite, Teucri.
-- Laocoön
More information about the NANOG
mailing list