[124895] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Newbie
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Luke)
Wed Apr 7 11:16:54 2010
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:13:18 -0500
From: Chris Luke <chrisy@flix.net>
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.varmrczttfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Ricky Beam wrote (on Apr 06):
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:20:26 -0400, shake righa <ssrigha@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
>
> That's the equiv of a /31 in IPv4. Do you use /31's for p-t-p links
> in your IPv4 network(s)?
>
> (Yes, I've used /31's before, but only to represent 2 /32's. And
> even that was silly.)
We use /31 (v4) and /127 (v6) for internal PtPs in our mostly-vendor-C network with no special tweaks or odd behaviour. YMMV.
There was a talk at the Austin NANOG on this. I asked the audience in a straw-poll what their PtP v6 netmask preferences were - resoundingly audience support was for /127's.
Chris.
