On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Job Snijders <job@xxxxxxx> wrote:
One of the immediate benefits of using a /126, is that it's not a /64!
That argument is nonsensical. You can't prove that A is better than B only by saying that A is not the same as B.
Also, a /126 is the smallest non-64 size with the highest likeliness to get the job done from an interoperability perspective (not the /127).
I don't see how you can simultaneously argue that /126 is good because vendors don't implement the RFC 6164 and allow /127 AND that you want to change the standard. If vendors don't implement the standard, then what good does changing the standard do you?