[175217] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Raphael)
Sat Oct 11 16:51:12 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Tim Raphael <raphael.timothy@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:09:08 +0800
In-Reply-To: <C96007F9-334B-4835-B95E-B04141C23340@arbor.net>
To: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
=46rom my research, various authorities have recommended that a single /64 b=
e allocated to router loopbacks with /128s assigned on interfaces. This make=
s a lot of sense to me as (which has been said) there is no other *need* in t=
he foreseeable future to have more than one IP on the loopback - this is the=
purpose of it. Any technology or design that requires this has got scaling i=
ssues and should not be used anyway.
Regards,
Tim Raphael
> On 11 Oct 2014, at 2:37 pm, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:33 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wro=
te:
>>=20
>> I am trying to understand what is sub-optimal about doing so...Waste of I=
pv6 space ? or some other technical reason ?
>=20
> It's wasteful of address space, but more importantly, it turns your router=
into a sinkole.
>=20
>> (is a /64 address are a 'sinkhole' the only reason ? )
>=20
> That's a pretty big reason not to use /64s.
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>=20
> Equo ne credite, Teucri.
>=20
> -- Laoco=C3=B6n
>=20
