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 <michael@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 <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez <octalnanog@alvarezp.org <mailto:octalnanog@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