Using /126 for IPv6 router links
jmaimon at ttec.com
Tue Jan 26 14:54:59 UTC 2010
Owen DeLong wrote:
> No, they're not impossible to exhaust, just pretty difficult.
> However, If we see exhaustion coming too soon in this /3, we can always apply a more conservative
> numbering policy to the next /3. (And still have 5 /3s left to innovate and try other alternatives).
We have had this conversation before, but I just wanted to put my two
cents out there again.
I dont view /3 as a safety valve. I view it as a possible escape pod
from a sinking ship.
If it needs to be utilized, the entire world has been dealt a large
disservice - something great pains should be taken to avoid. I doubt it
would be an "oops, ime sorry, no harm done".
It should not be a factor to add risk into allocation design.
Furthermore, any allocation holder trying the same trick of reserving a
greater than half of their block for the safety valve in their numbering
scheme might quickly discover that their block is a bit more cramped
than they thought it would be.
For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
More information about the NANOG