[121652] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Sat Jan 23 20:08:48 2010
In-Reply-To: <0C4E3B08-C930-411A-8E8E-53B528C039E8@mironet.ch>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:08:05 -0500
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Mathias Seiler <mathias.seiler@mironet.ch>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
<mathias.seiler@mironet.ch> wrote:
> Hi
>
> In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
>
> I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link between two routers. This works great but when I think that I'm wasting 2^64 - 2 addresses here it feels plain wrong.
>
> So what do you think? Good? Bad? Ugly? /127 ? ;)
<cough>draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt</cough>
(<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt>)
why not just ping your vendors to support this, and perhaps chime in
on v6ops about wanting to do something sane with ptp link addressing?
:)
-Chris
