[135360] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Carlos Friacas)
Mon Jan 24 08:00:34 2011
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:59:36 +0000 (WET)
From: Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt>
To: Lasse Jarlskov <laja@telenor.dk>
In-Reply-To: <FC64B3384195884588D252343702D23F01854588@ICABEXCCLU01B.int.sonofon.dk>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
>
