Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

[Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbraith () gmail com>]

Sometimes good enough > perfect

Never know what is going to come along to turn your addressing plan on its head.

-brandon

On 1/23/10, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net> wrote:
> On 1/23/2010 8:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
> > > In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like
> > > to know what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
> > >
> > > I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for
> > > the link between two routers. This works great but when I think
> > > that I'm wasting 2^64 - 2 addresses here it feels plain wrong.
> > >
> > > So what do you think? Good? Bad? Ugly? /127 ? ;)
> > Use the /64... It's OK... IPv6 was designed with that in mind.
> >
> > 64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond M&M,
> > you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with M&Ms before you
> > ran out of /64s.
>
> Did somebody once say something like that about Class C addresses?
>
>
> --
> "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
> take everything you have."
>
> Remember:  The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
>
> Requiescas in pace o email
> Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
> Eppure si rinfresca
>
> ICBM Targeting Information:  http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
> http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
>       


-- 
Brandon Galbraith
Mobile: 630.400.6992
FNAL: 630.840.2141