IPv6 Address Planning

[Lars Erik Gullerud]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Roger Jorgensen wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Dan Reeder wrote:
>>
>>> - doesn't accommodate for the 128 reserved anycast addresses, but a / 120
>>> does
>>
>> why is there a need for anycast on a peer-to-peer link? there should be no
>> data on that link except data sent specifically from one end to the other.
>
> it's not really an options, it's the way it is, just accept it.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one 
persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on 
the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw

Accepting that you'd need space for 128 reserved anycast addresses on a 
p-t-p link is not something I'm prepared to do, I prefer to remain 
unreasonable. :)

>> Honestly folks, talk about storm in a teacup. Its logical, its simple,
>> nothing is broken: it just works.
>
> it don't juts work, the /128, /127, /126 is a good exampe of that, due to
> change a /127 isn't usable over night :}

/127 still seem to work just fine on my gear, fwiw. Although we use /126 
ourselves in the production network, and are considering standardizing 
on /124 instead due to them being more "human-friendly".

> the only way you can be guaranatied it will work are to use /64, or /112
> as everyone claim is okay...

Or, if it turns out "everyone" is actually using longer prefixes, then the 
vendors will make sure to support it. They follow the money. And don't 
particularly care what the academics and other non-ops people who spend 
their time bickering in various IETF-WGs over pointless details says as 
long as their real-world customers pay.

Sometimes capitalism actually works rather well.

/leg