[146983] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Nov 29 23:36:00 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4ED52053.5040102@bogus.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:31:35 -0800
To: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.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 Nov 29, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 11/29/11 09:30 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I believe those have been obsoleted, but, /64 remains the best =
choice, IMHO.
>=20
> operational practice has moved on.
>=20
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164
>=20
RFC 6164 does not say anything bad about using /64.
Owen
>> Owen
>>=20
>> On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:00 AM, McCall, Gabriel wrote:
>>=20
>>> Note that /127 is strongly discouraged in RFC5375 and RFC3627. 3627 =
suggests using /112 for router links, or /126 at the very most.
>>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com]=20
>>> ...
>>> I see no reason you couldn't use a /127 prefix if the link was point =
to point.
>>> ...=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
