joelja at bogus.com
Thu Jun 9 10:07:23 CDT 2011
On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:02 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 6/9/2011 1:58 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>> Still that doesn't give any reason to provide /112 for point to point
>> connectivitiy. Seriously, I'm peering with a transit provider with /126 and
>> when I asked for a reason they said, ease of management. How come Subnetting
>> /32 to /126 is ease of management??.... thats quite difficult to understand.
>> This debate is there fore quite a long time but everytime it pops up I
>> feel so uncomfortable with this granular subnetting.
> Some networks prefer a uniform numbering scheme. /112 allows for reasonable addressing needs on a circuit. In addition, while Ethernet is often used in a point-to-point access circuit, such layouts may change and renumbering would be annoying.
> Finally, having chunks 4-7 define the circuit and chunk 8 provide the circuit addressing makes it more human readable and is prone to less mistakes by those who suck at math.
not to disagree how from my vantage point, it's fairly straight forward to assign a /64 and then deploy as a /127. that might be considered wasteful on the other hand a subnet is a subnet.
More information about the NANOG