[121655] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sat Jan 23 21:03:48 2010
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:33:18 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <75cb24521001231708q11d611f2g6cb9005d2a4039f@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Mathias Seiler <mathias.seiler@mironet.ch>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:08:05 -0500
Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>)
>
<cough>Internet Draft</cough>
No disrespect to the people who've written it, however it's a draft at
this point, not an RFC.
The current IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture RFC (RFC4291) says,
" For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
constructed in Modified EUI-64 format"
If that draft is going to go anywhere, then I would expect there also
needs to be a new version of RFC4291.
> 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
>
