>-----Original Message----- >From: Roland Dobbins [mailto:[email protected]] >On Aug 14, 2009, at 10:31 PM, Chris Gotstein wrote: >> I'm just not able to wrap my brain around the subnetting that needs to >> be done on the router. >One of the things which has struck me as being fairly insane about current >recommended 'best practices' for IPv6 addressing is the practice of wasting >huge blocks of addresses on p2p links; even given the gigantic address space, >in a world in which every soda-can, every window-blind, and swarms of medical >nanobots injected into one's bloodstream will potentially become spimes, this >just seems grossly short-sighted.
It is all a matter of perspective. If you want to use /126s (or whatever longer-than-64bit-prefix-you-like) that is ~OK - it certainly works! - but you may be complicating your life in the future. It is "your network" - build it however you wish, just be sure of the benefits and drawbacks associated with those choices. (Purely an off-the-top-of-my-head hypothetical: What if PtP links become drastically less common, and you need to re-address your network from ~/126s to /64s because of that? You are causing yourself pain, and for what gain? To conserve a resource that is not (and according to some, will effectively never be) in short supply?) A great counter-point to this is that if you do use /64s (or for that matter - anything shorter than the currently-not-recommended /127s, AFAIK), you should apply ACLs to them to prevent ping-pong. ((FWIW - counting the number of individual address being used is a non-starter ... ~18,000,000,000,000,000,000 addresses on each segment is more than enough for any solution I expect in the relevant future. I am not saying the goal of conservation is bad (e.g. - I like /56s to homes instead of /48s), just trying to keep things in perspective.)) Pick your flavor of answer, and drink heavily. I prefer coffee ... or Vodka. /TJ
