On Friday 12 September 2008 05:29:55 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > my initial (and, i guess, current) IPv6 deployment plan > was based on /64 subnets. yes, thats a ridiculous amount > of hosts per subnet...nasty software coded in 'the old > style' might make these very big collision domains and i > do worry about how ISC DHCPv6 will handle such large > numbers of leases - recalling how it deals with /16's in > IPv4 land.
As has been mentioned by some others on the list, we use: * /112 - for subnets * /126 - for point-to-points * /128 - for Loopbacks. We don't believe in using /64's for point-to-points, as some of the peering/transit we do on v6 has shown (the other party's assignment) - I simply fail to understand how many other hosts you could possibly have on a point-to-point link, between 2 routers, to warrant a /64. We are not big on /64's ability for autoconf, like someone else has mentioned. There's a certain satisfaction to be had when I go to bed knowing that the v6 address I coded onto the router/server interface will still be the same one when I wake up the following day. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
