|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0508101306030.3650@parapet.argfrp.us.uu.net> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:46:33 +0200 To: Christopher L.Morrow <christopher.morrow@mci.com> Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu On 10-aug-2005, at 15:06, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: >> Well, if you want to be really environmentally conscious, do away >> with that /126 too and just use link-locals, with a single global >> address per router for management and the generation of ICMPs. > and you ping the customer links how? (or did I miss the point of the > link-locals?) You don't. I don't think the point of link-locals has much to do with pinging customers... But since IPv6 routing protocols work over link- locals you don't need global addresses. If you want to ping your customers you should probably use a /126 so they can only use the specific address you give them. You need that anyway if you want to route a /48 or what have you to them. BTW, there is discussion about rethinking /48s for customers in IPv6. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |