[146976] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel jaeggli)
Tue Nov 29 13:12:59 2011
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:11:31 -0800
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <1A82EDD0-EB67-45FD-B601-1456ECC0BD5D@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>, "McCall,
Gabriel" <Gabriel.McCall@thyssenkrupp.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 11/29/11 09:30 , Owen DeLong wrote:
> I believe those have been obsoleted, but, /64 remains the best choice, IMHO.
operational practice has moved on.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164
> Owen
>
> On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:00 AM, McCall, Gabriel 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.
>> ...
>>
>
>
>
