And /48 was chosen as the site size so that we didn’t have to think about that either. It’s large enough to cover almost all sites with additional /48s to be provided if you run out of /64s. Nothing in the last 20+ years has lead me to believe that these decisions were wrong. In fact NOT following these rules has consequences for everybody else as you can’t policy filter at the /48 boundary without collateral damage. I would recommend that all ISP’s using longer prefixes for customer assignment shorten them to /48s. Mark
On 29 Dec 2017, at 8:35 am, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
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
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org