nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent IPv6
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:02:06 -0500
On 6/9/2011 1:58 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
Still that doesn't give any reason to provide /112 for point to point connectivitiy. Seriously, I'm peering with a transit provider with /126 and when I asked for a reason they said, ease of management. How come Subnetting /32 to /126 is ease of management??.... thats quite difficult to understand. This debate is there fore quite a long time but everytime it pops up I feel so uncomfortable with this granular subnetting.
Some networks prefer a uniform numbering scheme. /112 allows for reasonable addressing needs on a circuit. In addition, while Ethernet is often used in a point-to-point access circuit, such layouts may change and renumbering would be annoying.
Finally, having chunks 4-7 define the circuit and chunk 8 provide the circuit addressing makes it more human readable and is prone to less mistakes by those who suck at math.
Jack
Current thread:
- Cogent IPv6 Nick Olsen (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Mark Radabaugh (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Martin Millnert (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 ryan (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jun 08)
- RE: Cogent IPv6 Kelly Setzer (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 William Herrin (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Chris Adams (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Aftab Siddiqui (Jun 08)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Jack Bates (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 William Herrin (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Jack Bates (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Joel Jaeggli (Jun 09)
- RE: Cogent IPv6 George Bonser (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Chuck Anderson (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Rob Evans (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Grzegorz Janoszka (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 sthaug (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Chuck Anderson (Jun 09)