From: Mark Tinka <
mtinka@globaltransit.net>
To: Owen DeLong <
owen@delong.com>
Cc: Skeeve Stevens <
Skeeve@eintellego.net>;
sig-policy@lists.apnic.netSent: Sunday, 18 September 2011 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses
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.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy