nanog mailing list archives
IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
From: Lasse Jarlskov <laja () telenor dk>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:48:57 +0100
Hi all. While reading up on IPv6, I've seen numerous places that subnets are now all /64. I have even read that subnets defined as /127 are considered harmful. However while implementing IPv6 in our network, I've encountered several of our peering partners using /127 or /126 for point-to-point links. What is the Best Current Practice for this - if there is any? Would you recommend me to use /64, /126 or /127? What are the pros and cons? -- Best regards, Lasse Jarlskov Systems architect - IP Telenor DK
Current thread:
- IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Lasse Jarlskov (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Carlos Friacas (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Grzegorz Janoszka (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Marco Hogewoning (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links bmanning (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Jack Bates (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Crist Clark (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Owen DeLong (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Randy Bush (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Blake Hudson (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links bmanning (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Carlos Friacas (Jan 24)