>-----Original Message----- >From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:18 PM >To: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum > >On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Deepak Jain wrote: > >> operational content: Is anyone significantly redesigning the way they >> route/etc to take advantage of any hooks that IPv6 provides-for (even >> if its a proprietary implementation)? As far as I can tell, most >> people are just implementing it as IPv4 with a lot of bits (i.e. /126s >> for link interfaces, etc). > >There seem to be differing schools of thought on this, but personally I'm >leaning in this direction at least for network infrastructure. Just because >IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I like wasting >addresses :)
Another side of that argument is operational complexity ... /126's do make the addresses harder (as a previous poster mentioned) as well as inducing other potential headaches (reserved address to watch out for, requiring another route to get to a client's network, etc). That is why the official answer is to always use /64s, even on PtP links. This is one area where the real world and the IETF don't always agree, and in this case that can be OK. > >jms /TJ
