Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
From: Tim Durack <tdurack () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:13:22 -0500

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Mark Smith
<nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500
"TJ" <trejrco () gmail com> wrote:

I didn't realize "human friendly" was even a nominal design consideration,
especially as different humans have different tolerances for defining
"friendly"  :)

This from people who can probably do decimal to binary conversion
and back again for IPv4 subnetting in their head and are proud of
it. Surely IPv6 hex to binary and back again can be the new party
trick? :-)

Maybe we can all do this stuff in our head, but I have found removing
unnecessary thinking from the equation is useful for those "3am"

Given that I am assigning a /48 to a site anyway, and 65k /64s is
"more than I will ever need", does it really matter if the
site-specific numbering plan isn't ruthlessly efficient?

Sent from Brooklyn, NY, United States

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]