[175150] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Baldur Norddahl)
Thu Oct 9 16:45:07 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <29886F49-E7D5-410F-BC26-0E64FE942AED@arbor.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 22:42:52 +0200
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 9 October 2014 22:32, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:
>
> On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I am sure there are. Tell me about them.
>
> This issue has been discussed on all the various operational lists many,
> many times over the years.
>
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6752>
>
The linked document talks about issues with using private IP addresses. I
am not suggesting that you do that. I am suggesting that you use _no_ IP
addresses on the links. Generally the devices will use the loopback IP,
which will be public, for your traceroutes and for ICMP.
None of the issues in RFC 6752 are applicable to the concept of using host
routes to peer loopback address instead of assigning link specific
addressing.
Regards,
Baldur
