Is there any reason we really need to care what size other people use for their Point to Point links?
Personally, I think /64 works just fine. I won't criticize anyone for using it. It's what I choose to use. However, if someone else wants to keep track of /112s, /120s, /124s, /126s, or even /127s on their own network, so be it. The protocol allows for all of that. If vendors build stuff that depends on /64, that stuff is technically broken and it's between the network operator and the vendor to get it resolved. Owen On Jan 5, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > >> please explain why this is in any way better than operating the same LAN >> with a subnet similar in size to its existing IPv4 subnets, e.g. a /120. > > > Using /64s is insane because a) it's unnecessarily wasteful (no lectures on > how large the space is, I know, and reject that argument out of hand) and b) > it turns the routers/switches into sinkholes. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> > > Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid, with millions > of bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural integrity, but > just done by brute force and thousands of slaves. > > -- Alan Kay >
