nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
From: Carlos Friacas <cfriacas () fccn pt>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:59:36 +0000 (WET)
Hi Lasse, We use /64s. ::1 for one end, ::2 for the second end.Using /126s or /127s (or even /120s) is a result of going with the v4 mindset of conservation.
With a /32 you have 65536 /48s, and then 65536 /64s. Guess you only need 1 /48 for all the p-to-p links, no? Regards, Carlos (portuguese NREN, 6deploy.eu project partner) On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Lasse Jarlskov wrote:
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
Current thread:
- IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Lasse Jarlskov (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Carlos Friacas (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Grzegorz Janoszka (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Marco Hogewoning (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links bmanning (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Jack Bates (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Crist Clark (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Owen DeLong (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Randy Bush (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Blake Hudson (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Blake Hudson (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links bmanning (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Carlos Friacas (Jan 24)