On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:But the configuration cost and management overhead is not proportional to the hosts that are served by those interconnections, it is proportional to the number of interconnections. A 10x100G peering interconnection that serves X million hosts is one interface that has to be managed.isn't the dicsussion here really:
"If you want to use /64 go ahead, if you want to use /121 go for it, if you want to use SLAAC you'll get a /64 and like it"Not sure. I for one wouldn't agree with that position, because I don't see that /121 has enough advantages over /127 and /64 - and few enough downsides for general-purpose hosts - to make it a good idea in general.
I don't think /121 is anymore special than /127... or /64. My point was we don't care what prefix people use, generally, that there are cases where a /64 is required and that's fine, there are cases where /64 isn't and people can do what they want there. It's simple enough to do SLAAC/64 on lans and other places.
Requiring /64 or /127 and nothing else means when you do have to do a /120 or something else you MAY end up fighting vendor problems because they made assumptions about: "only ever 64 or 127".