On 1/24/2011 7:18 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
this results in -very- sparse matrix allocation - which is fine, as long as you believe that you'll never run out/make mistakes. personally, i've use /126 for the past 12 years w/o any problems.
There isn't an increased mistake risk factor using /126 out of a /64 assigned and your mistake factor probably slightly increases just assigning a bunch of /126 out of a single /64. We use /126 internal links, /128 loopbacks (these we do streamline), and customer links are generally /64, as currently we have no choice but use SLAAC + DHCPv6 (thanks Cisco!).
That being said, while renumbering my network, I noted several link address mistakes. Had nothing to do with the /126 or /64 boundaries. I just left out one of the nibblet sets, and :: notation gladly makes that into a valid address. This leads me to believe that using short hand is likely to lead to more mistakes.
Jack
