From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 31 18:30:08 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D44E106566B for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:30:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from mail.cksoft.de (mail.cksoft.de [195.88.108.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5636B8FC18 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:30:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A1241C64C; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:30:06 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cksoft.de Received: from mail.cksoft.de ([195.88.108.3]) by localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nU8nAO1j81xg; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:30:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id 2C18B41C677; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:30:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net (maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net [10.111.66.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56384448E6; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:27:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:27:52 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net To: Randy Bush In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20091031180545.C91695@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <4AEB834D.1050907@keff.org> <20091031.090152.74670981.sthaug@nethelp.no> <20091031.110837.41706473.sthaug@nethelp.no> X-OpenPGP-Key: 0x14003F198FEFA3E77207EE8D2B58B8F83CCF1842 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, sthaug@nethelp.no Subject: Re: Hi. /31 on ethernet links X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:30:08 -0000 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Randy Bush wrote: Hi, >> However, I was simply reacting to the claim that it was *supported* by >> Cisco. > > have you noticed a difference in the bug rate between things that are > 'supported by cisco' and those that just happen to be there? :) > > but you're right. i liked. our p2ps are /30s, not /31s. and we're > moving from /126 to /127. I am sorry, I couldn't resist; I hope you won't take everything at face value... though I hope you'll seriously think of some things... Oh what /30 /31 bikeshed and how old it is? I prefer to speak of p_t_p for point-to-point in contrast to p2p for peer-2-peer btw. I seem to remember that it used to be like that but unfortunately neither the vendors nor the people who are writing (IETF) specs make a difference anymore. I do not understand, though I know some, people who are not using a /64 on an Ethernet IPv6 link; may it be ptp or not. I know there is an old enough bikeshed out about that as well as some prosposed standards. /127 really sounds fighting a system to me. It's not that you couldn't address each atom in hour house already I'd wildy guess with a /48 but ... some people always have trouble freeing their mind from things that were like that 20 years and further back. Have you ever thought of limiting your scoped link-local space on Ethernet? So why do you need valid IPs on your interfaces at all? Why do you need more than a single global unicast address? Save your IPv6 addresses for the neighbour's fridges and toasters. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb Even on Oct. 31st there is no candy with this mail.