Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addr

To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka at globaltransit dot net>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 23:44:35 +0800
Cc: Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve at eintellego dot net>
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <CA996BAA.4735C%skeeve at eintellego dot net>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Global Transit International
References: <CA996BAA.4735C%skeeve@eintellego.net>
Reply-to: mtinka@globaltransit.net
User-agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.37.6-0.7-desktop; KDE/4.6.0; i686; ; )

wrote:

> Thing is… I agree with you when it comes to
> Interconnects, and so on, where I am much more
> conservative, using /112's where a lot of people are
> using much larger (64s, etc).

I've never quite understood why a point-to-point link would 
have anything other than a /126 (I've seen some folks doing 
a /127, a little too risque for me).

We use /112's for BMA LAN's (like among various routers in a 
production network). It's more than we shall ever need on a 
single LAN, but it's not as perverse as a /64, given that we 
manually assign our devices their v6 addresses.

I'm just not sure how many devices you can address on a 
point-to-point link that has only two devices on either end 
of it.

Mark.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.