[146971] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Soucy)
Tue Nov 29 12:10:19 2011
In-Reply-To: <DEBECAC9A6D5224D95078F3CDC36225809C431@TKMNAEXCH.thyssenna.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:09:00 -0500
From: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu>
To: "McCall, Gabriel" <Gabriel.McCall@thyssenkrupp.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Yes and no; RFC6164 is attempting to make that more acceptable.
Although; the only thing that pushed us from /30 to /31 in IPv4 was
the address space crunch; that doesn't exist in the IPv6 world; so
using /127 instead of /126 really doesn't seem to buy us much.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:00 PM, McCall, Gabriel
<Gabriel.McCall@thyssenkrupp.com> wrote:
> Note that /127 is strongly discouraged in RFC5375 and RFC3627. 3627 suggests using /112 for router links, or /126 at the very most.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com]
> ...
> I see no reason you couldn't use a /127 prefix if the link was point to point.
> ...
>
>
>
--
Ray Soucy
Epic Communications Specialist
Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526
Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System
http://www.networkmaine.net/
