[175210] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roland Dobbins)
Sat Oct 11 02:02:37 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <1070171971.148616.1413006103313.JavaMail.zimbra@snappytelecom.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:00:21 +0700
To: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappytelecom.net> =
wrote:
> For Router Loopback Address .... what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs =
/128 ?
In the BCOP, this is noted so that those who suboptimally address their =
p-t-p links with /64s can be consistently suboptimal by doing the same =
with their loopbacks, so that *all* their interfaces are sinkholes. =20
But the BCOP also talks about /128s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Equo ne credite, Teucri.
-- Laoco=F6n
