Sigh… Let’s stop with the IPv4-think. Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for a 64-bit total address and the additional 64 bits was added to make universal 64-bit subnets a no-brainer.
Owen > On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:55 , Michael Crapse <mich...@wi-fiber.io> wrote: > > Yes, let's talk about waste, Lets waste 2^64 addresses for a ptp. > If that was ipv4 you could recreate the entire internet with that many > addresses. > > On 28 December 2017 at 10:39, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > > > On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez <octalna...@alvarezp.org > > <mailto:octalna...@alvarezp.org>> wrote: > > > > On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote: > >> On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > >> Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P > >> link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6, > >> due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices, > >> you are told to "just use a /64' for your point to points. > > > > Isn't it a /127 nowadays, per RFC 6547 and RFC 6164? I guess the > > exception would be if a router does not support it. > > > > Best regards, > > Octavio. > > Best practice used most places is to assign a /64 and put a /127 on the > interfaces. > > Owen > > >
