Using /126 for IPv6 router links

[jmaimon at ttec.com (Joe Maimon)]

Owen DeLong wrote:
>

> No, they're not impossible to exhaust, just pretty difficult.
>
> However, If we see exhaustion coming too soon in this /3, we can always apply a more conservative
> numbering policy to the next /3. (And still have 5 /3s left to innovate and try other alternatives).
>
> Owen
>


Owen,

We have had this conversation before, but I just wanted to put my two 
cents out there again.

I dont view /3 as a safety valve. I view it as a possible escape pod 
from a sinking ship.

If it needs to be utilized, the entire world has been dealt a large 
disservice - something great pains should be taken to avoid. I doubt it 
would be an "oops, ime sorry, no harm done".

It should not be a factor to add risk into allocation design.

Furthermore, any allocation holder trying the same trick of reserving a 
greater than half of their block for the safety valve in their numbering 
scheme might quickly discover that their block is a bit more cramped 
than they thought it would be.

For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.

What should the objective be, decades or centuries?

Joe