[135367] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ronald Bonica)
Mon Jan 24 08:32:01 2011
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Lasse Jarlskov <laja@telenor.dk>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:29:26 -0500
In-Reply-To: <FC64B3384195884588D252343702D23F01854588@ICABEXCCLU01B.int.sonofon.dk>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Lasse,
draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-01 provides some insights.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lasse Jarlskov [mailto:laja@telenor.dk]
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 7:49 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
>=20
> Hi all.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> While reading up on IPv6, I've seen numerous places that subnets are
> now
> all /64.
>=20
> I have even read that subnets defined as /127 are considered harmful.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> However while implementing IPv6 in our network, I've encountered
> several
> of our peering partners using /127 or /126 for point-to-point links.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> What is the Best Current Practice for this - if there is any?
>=20
> Would you recommend me to use /64, /126 or /127?
>=20
> What are the pros and cons?
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
>=20
> Best regards,
>=20
> Lasse Jarlskov
>=20
> Systems architect - IP
>=20
> Telenor DK
