[175212] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Faisal Imtiaz)
Sat Oct 11 02:33:19 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 06:33:11 +0000 (GMT)
From: Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappytelecom.net>
To: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <E09DE328-B08D-4ECF-BFF1-FE73E3F23C7F@arbor.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> 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 the=
ir
> loopbacks,
I am trying to understand what is sub-optimal about doing so...Waste of Ipv=
6 space ? or some other technical reason ?
(is a /64 address are a 'sinkhole' the only reason ? )
Regards
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roland Dobbins" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
> To: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 2:00:21 AM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback =
Address
>=20
>=20
> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wr=
ote:
>=20
> > For Router Loopback Address .... what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs =
/128
> > ?
>=20
> 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 the=
ir
> loopbacks, so that *all* their interfaces are sinkholes.
>=20
> But the BCOP also talks about /128s.
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>=20
> Equo ne credite, Teucri.
>=20
> =09=09 =09 -- Laoco=C3=B6n
>=20
>
