[AusNOG] IPv6 Addressing

[Matthew Maxwell]

David hit the nail on the head.

IPv4 saw preaching of the idea that exhausting v4's space was
inconceivable and so wasteful allocation, short sighted policies, et
al flowed fourth.

Now, v6, deja vu anybody?

Wise man once said "just because you can doesn't mean you should."


On 06/04/2011, at 17:42, David Hughes <David at Hughes.com.au> wrote:

>
> Hate to show my age here but years ago (1993 perhaps) I spoke at the Internet Society's conference in San Francisco.  I remember watching a presentation by Peter Ford when he was getting the gospel according to CIDR out into the public.  The 2 points below sound very similar to the reasons we needed to roll out CIDR.  What's wrong with giving everyone who needs more than 3 * /24's a /16 I ask you?
>
> So to answer Graham's original question : why allocate 8,446,744,073,709,551,616 addressed to a point to point link?  Because our industry has a bloody bad memory.
>
>
> David
> ...
>
> On 06/04/2011, at 1:55 PM, Michael Christie (micchris) wrote:
>
>> I would suggest:
>>
>> 1) It makes your design simpler: /64 everywhere
>> 2) There are 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 /64s available*
>>
>> *apart from special/reserved ranges.
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog