[195169] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Point 2 point IPs between ASes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Thu Jun 29 12:40:37 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 08:49:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streinerj@gmail.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVJhaEj-9V+t9U_YcsWW4OcEapwsK8bUmBC1-NdxrVMfw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017, William Herrin wrote:
> Heck, I=E2=80=99m gonna do whatever it takes to NOT subnet on bits with m=
y v6
>> deployment. Hopefully with v6, gone are the days of binary subnetting m=
ath.
I hedged my bets when I laid out our v6 space at my previous $dayjob. We=
=20
used /126s for point-to-point links, but carved out a /64 for each=20
point-to-point link in our IPAM system. That way, if we ever encountered=
=20
a device that wouldn't play nicely with a /126 on a point-to-point link,=20
we could just change the mask to /64 (or something else, if the device=20
requires a byte or nibble boundary) on the interface and any relevant=20
ACLs and not have to re-provision addresses for the link.
I seem to recall that our upstreams generally standardized on /126s for=20
point-to-point interconnects to us. We had one interconnect that was a=20
/64, but that also wasn't a point-to-point link.
jms
