[121758] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ron Bonica)
Tue Jan 26 11:51:52 2010
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:50:22 -0500
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <75cb24521001231708q11d611f2g6cb9005d2a4039f@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>,
Mathias Seiler <mathias.seiler@mironet.ch>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Chris,
Discussion of draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p is on the IETF 6man WG
mailing list. But please do chime in. Operator input very welcomed.
Ron
Christopher Morrow 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>)
>
> 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
>
>
