|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Lars Erik Gullerud <lerik@nolink.net> To: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu> In-Reply-To: <006601c4ce50$307499f0$6801a8c0@stephen> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:15:26 +0100 Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 16:36, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > /127 prefixes are assumed for point-to-point links, and presumably an > organization will divide up a single /64 for all ptp links -- unless they > have more than 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 of them. While that would seem logical for most engineers, used to /30 or /31 ptp links in IPv4 (myself included), that does not in fact seem to be the way things are currently done in IPv6, unless something changed (again) while I wasn't paying attention... /64 is the minimum subnet size, even for ptp-links - there was even an RFC published relating to the use of /127's (or, should I say, the recommendation to "don't to that"), namely RFC3627 (aka "Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered Harmful"). But, you can still get 65536 ptp links out of a single /48 of course. I'm sure Pekka or others will jump in here and correct me if this is now out-of-date info. :) /leg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |