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

[Arturo Servin]

On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:01, Fernando Gont wrote:

> Hi, Arturo,
> 
> On 06/06/2012 07:11 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> Sorry, we agree to disagree. I do not buy the waste of IPv6 addresses
>> argument. 
> 
> Well, it *is* a waste of addresses if you have 2^^64 addresses
> available, but you already know (from starters) that you'll only use at
> most a handful of them.

	I do not say that it is not a waste, I say that I do not buy the argument because we are already wasting addresses with SLAAC. So why bother with a hundreds of thousands p2p links if we are wasting millions in multiaccess networks. If we were really worried about waste, we were fixing SLAAC.

> 
> 
>> If it were, we should start reviewing SLAAC.
> 
> We probably should. :-) For instance, traditional SLAAC (embedding the
> MAC address) is a bad idea.... And mechanisms such as
> draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses or RFC 4941 could be easily
> adapted to non-/64 prefixes (although the larger the subnet space, the
> higher the resulting "unpredictability")

	For example.
	

> 
> 
> 
>> The real problem with /64 IMHO is security; 
> 
> The security problems with /64s do not really have to do with the /64s
> themselves, but rather with buggy Neighbor Discovery implementations
> that are dumb enough to not enforce limits on the number of entries in
> the Neighbor Cache, and that fail to implement appropriate garbage
> collection for the Neighbor Cache.

	Yes, it is.

> 
> Cheers,

	Today is IPv6 World Launch, and we agree!! We should have more!
	
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont en si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 

Cheers!
as

> 
>