BCP: Slicing a /32 for an ISP

[Mark Tinka]

On Monday 14 April 2008, Michael Adams wrote:

> I'm eager to hear more opinions about this. We are going
> to use /64 for all kind of network interfaces including
> point-to-point links and loopback interfaces.

We saw no point in using /64 especially for point-to-point 
links and Loopback interfaces.

At my previous employer, our upstream provider decided to 
use a /64 on a point-to-point transit link. It was their 
network, but I could have done it differently - besides the 
2 routers that talk to each other over this circuit for a 
specific purpose, what other network elements are you 
possibly going to have in between that justifies allowing 
for 18,446,744,073,709,552,000 addresses, as opposed to 
just 2.

We, more or less, used the same argument for our LAN 
segments. If our core network comprises a handful of 
routers and switches, I'm sure even 65,536 addresses for a 
few hundred nodes should be sufficient.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20080414/e18f6882/attachment.sig>