[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[6bone] semi-newbie Q on IPv6 address planning
- Subject: [6bone] semi-newbie Q on IPv6 address planning
- From: [email protected] (Robert Elz)
- Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 22:44:44 +0700
- In-reply-to: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E22B@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
- References: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E22B@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:00:10 -0700
From: "Michel Py" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E22B@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
| > And what is a /126 allocation for a point-to-point link?
|
| Not good, it violates RFC2373.
which is totally harmless.
| You should use a /64 for point-to-point links.
That is an option.
| It is typical to allocate a /48 for your ptp links.
If you have a /32 (or similar), that's nice (and I appreciate that was the
context of the question). But most users will have just one /48, allocating
that to p2p links would be a bit drastic...
Personally, I use /112's for p2p links. Works just fine. Scales wonderfully.
kre