On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Job Snijders <job@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Since you are unwilling to accept that there could be downsides to using
a /64, i understand the argument makes no sense to you. Reasonable
people can disagree with each other.
I stand by the position that "/126 is better than /64 because /126 is not /64" is a nonsensical argument. Saying "/126 is better than /64 due to reasons A, B, C, ..." will likely be more effective - well, depending on what A, B and C are. But I haven't heard much in the way of supporting evidence from you other than "my network uses lots of prefix lengths thus /64 is bad". That in itself is not convincing to me. Perhaps I am missing something else you said?
Why publish a document that conflicts with (almost) every deployed
global IPv6 backbone? This would be a farce.
"Conflicts with the NTT backbone" != "conficts with almost every deployed backbone". The backbone I am familiar with uses a combination of /127, /64, and link-local point to point interfaces, or at least it did last time I checked.
Also, backbone networks are a tiny percentage of the links on the planet.