It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum

TJ trejrco at
Mon Aug 18 15:28:20 CDT 2008

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner at]
>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:18 PM
>To: nanog at
>Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Deepak Jain wrote:
>> operational content: Is anyone significantly redesigning the way they
>> route/etc to take advantage of any hooks that IPv6 provides-for (even
>> if its a proprietary implementation)? As far as I can tell, most
>> people are just implementing it as IPv4 with a lot of bits (i.e. /126s
>> for link interfaces, etc).
>There seem to be differing schools of thought on this, but personally I'm
>leaning in this direction at least for network infrastructure.  Just
>IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I like wasting
>addresses :)

Another side of that argument is operational complexity ... /126's do make
the addresses harder (as a previous poster mentioned) as well as inducing
other potential headaches (reserved address to watch out for, requiring
another route to get to a client's network, etc).  That is why the official
answer is to always use /64s, even on PtP links.  This is one area where the
real world and the IETF don't always agree, and in this case that can be OK.



More information about the NANOG mailing list