[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

Subject: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
From: laja at telenor.dk (Lasse Jarlskov)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:48:57 +0100

Hi all.

 

While reading up on IPv6, I've seen numerous places that subnets are now
all /64.

I have even read that subnets defined as /127 are considered harmful.

 

However while implementing IPv6 in our network, I've encountered several
of our peering partners using /127 or /126 for point-to-point links.

 

What is the Best Current Practice for this - if there is any?

Would you recommend me to use /64, /126 or /127? 

What are the pros and cons?

 

 

-- 

Best regards,

Lasse Jarlskov

Systems architect - IP

Telenor DK

Follow-Ups:
- IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
  - From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas)
- IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
  - From: mch-nanog at xs4all.nl (Marco Hogewoning)
- IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
  - From: rbonica at juniper.net (Ronald Bonica)
- IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
  - From: Skeeve at eintellego.net (Skeeve Stevens)
- IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
  - From: rps at maine.edu (Ray Soucy)

Prev by Date: anyone running GPS clocks in Southeastern Georgia?
Next by Date: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
Previous by thread: National Squirrel Appreciation Day
Next by thread: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread