[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: mch-nanog at xs4all.nl (Marco Hogewoning)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:10:48 +0100
In-reply-to: <FC64B3384195884588D252343702D23F01854588@ICABEXCCLU01B.int.sonofon.dk>
References: <FC64B3384195884588D252343702D23F01854588@ICABEXCCLU01B.int.sonofon.dk>

> 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.

RFC3627, with a lot of discussion in the IETF on this. See also https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p/

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

I personally don't any benefit in using /126 subnets.

> 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?

Follow-Ups:
- IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
  - From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com)

References:
- IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
  - From: laja at telenor.dk (Lasse Jarlskov)

Prev by Date: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
Next by Date: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
Previous by thread: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
Next by thread: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread