nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent IPv6
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:02:26 -0400
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net> wrote:
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.
Hi Jack, I follow the reasoning, but unless you attach undue importance to the colons you get basically the same result with a /124. I guess choosing /112 for a point to point link is one of the weird side-effects of placing :'s in the address at fixed locations instead of arbitrary locations that serve the writer's mnemonic convenience. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside comĀ bill () herrin us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Current thread:
- Cogent IPv6 Nick Olsen (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Mark Radabaugh (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Martin Millnert (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 ryan (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jun 08)
- RE: Cogent IPv6 Kelly Setzer (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 William Herrin (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Chris Adams (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Aftab Siddiqui (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Jack Bates (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 William Herrin (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Jack Bates (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Joel Jaeggli (Jun 09)
- RE: Cogent IPv6 George Bonser (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Chuck Anderson (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Rob Evans (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Grzegorz Janoszka (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 sthaug (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Chuck Anderson (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 sthaug (Jun 09)
