[lacnog] [afnog] IPv 6 Point to Point at /64?

[Rodrigo Arenas]

Again... for us now is a tiny fraction... any way... almost for me the important point is we agree on change, the personal reason for that change can diverge into a huge universe of arguments :>... beyond no one has gone before :>... explore that is not my mission now .... jajaja

Rodrigo

On Jun 6, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:

> 
> 	Sorry, we agree to disagree. I do not buy the waste of IPv6 addresses argument. If it were, we should start reviewing SLAAC.
> 
> 	The real problem with /64 IMHO is security; it is just a tiny fraction of the space that we already wasting. 
> 
> Regards,
> as
> 
> On 6 Jun 2012, at 19:06, Rodrigo Arenas wrote:
> 
>> ok, / 112 seems sufficient, just to make it clear / 64 is a waste of addresses, not about being good or bad, say that we have now a big space of addresses avaiable does not mean we must wasting space as we did initially in ipv4 ... we do not know how will be the development of  the use of ipv6 addresses and just at around the corner our capacity for handling routes tables could far exceed our current perspectives
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Rodrigo
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 6, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 	Good points!
>>> 
>>> 	/64 is very convenient that fits all, but also may have some security issues. 112 does not sound bad at all.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> .as	
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6 Jun 2012, at 18:40, Sascha E. Pollok wrote:
>>> 
>>>> For many years -be it good or bad but it was quite convenient- we have been using /112 for all types of "transfer"(tm) networks. It leaves enough room for setting up more than 2-4 hosts in case of VRRPv6 or HSRPv6 or
>>>> Anycast setups (in case of a customer connected to redundant PE routers).
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, one could argue that a /124 could be enough too but a /126 is a bit
>>>> too small. Size does matter sometimes!
>>>> 
>>>> Going /112 for all cases of transfer-networks gives room for some flexibility.
>>>> 
>>>> -Sascha
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Muchos creemos que un /126 es suficiente, pero no todos creemos que sea lo más conveniente.
>>>>> =D
>>>>> /as
>>>>> On 5 Jun 2012, at 18:24, Nicolas Antoniello wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Me es grato saber que no estoy solo en la creencia de que un /126 es
>>>>>   suficiente para una PtP !!!
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LACNOG mailing list
>>>> LACNOG en lacnic.net
>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LACNOG mailing list
>>> LACNOG en lacnic.net
>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LACNOG mailing list
>> LACNOG en lacnic.net
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> 

------------ próxima parte ------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1683 bytes
Desc: no disponible
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20120606/a72153ac/attachment.bin>
------------ próxima parte ------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20120606/a72153ac/attachment.sig>