-----Original Message----- From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner@cluebyfour.org] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:18 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Deepak Jain wrote:
operational content: Is anyone significantly redesigning the way they route/etc to take advantage of any hooks that IPv6 provides-for (even if its a proprietary implementation)? As far as I can tell, most people are just implementing it as IPv4 with a lot of bits (i.e. /126s for link interfaces, etc).
There seem to be differing schools of thought on this, but personally I'm leaning in this direction at least for network infrastructure. Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I like wasting addresses :)
Another side of that argument is operational complexity ... /126's do make the addresses harder (as a previous poster mentioned) as well as inducing other potential headaches (reserved address to watch out for, requiring another route to get to a client's network, etc). That is why the official answer is to always use /64s, even on PtP links. This is one area where the real world and the IETF don't always agree, and in this case that can be OK.
jms
/TJ