On Sunday, September 18, 2011 01:43:13 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
Multiple prefix sizes, address fragmentation, etc.
Admittedly, it's a small complication, but, it is a
complication.
Further, it violates the principle of least surprise as
your organization scales and brings in new engineers.
A good v6 address assignment policy for one's infrastructure
is neither difficult to create nor maintain.
No issues here since we started running v6 over 6 years ago.
We know how v6 can make address management within an ISP's
network brain-dead to maintain, but it's not reason enough
to use /64's where we can comfortably use /112's and still
not overly complicate our lives.
So did I. I was being a little tongue in cheek/snarky
with just presenting the math on the number of
addresses,...
I know what you were getting at, with multiple v6 addresses
on a single interface, e.t.c.
but the reality is that there may be some
cases where having multiple addresses for one end of a
point to point or the other (or both) may prove useful.
These are admittedly rare.
Agree, but having run multiple networks with v6 over the
last several years, we're yet to find with a reason that has
required us to have multiple addresses on point-to-point
links either between infrastructure, or between AS domains.
Some things really are that simple :-).
Obviously, I can't speak for anyone else's network, just
ours.
Mark.