[175145] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Oct 9 16:04:15 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7Cgo8pLL5QU18bhS1BH0RXnPdj30SzeujbPMN_NefThGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 13:01:06 -0700
To: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> On 9 October 2014 19:55, Richard Hicks <richard.hicks@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> The BCOP specfically addresses this in 4b:
>> " *b. Point-to-point links should be allocated a /64 and configured =
with a
>> /126 or /127*"
>>=20
>=20
> Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can =
just
> use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you =
the
> hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Same trick =
works for
> IPv4 too.
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Baldur
<SARCASM>
And it makes your trace-routes across parallel links oh so easy to =
identify which of them is at fault for the packet loss, too.
</SARCASM>
There are a number of good technical reasons to want distinct addresses =
on point to point links.
Owen
