Using /126 for IPv6 router links

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Jan 26 12:21:02 CST 2010


On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> 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).
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
> 
> 
> Owen,
> 
> 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?
> 
> Joe

Decades... I think that a combination of other factors will likely conspire within decades to render the current
IPv6 protocol obsolete and drive adoption of a replacement protocol.  I don't know what those factors are,
but, historically, few things in technology have stood the test of decades. Almost nothing has stood the test
of centuries.

Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list