Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address

[Faisal Imtiaz <faisal () snappytelecom net>]

> In the BCOP, this is noted so that those who suboptimally address their p-t-p
> links with /64s can be consistently suboptimal by doing the same with their
> loopbacks,

I am trying to understand what is sub-optimal about doing so...Waste of Ipv6 space ? or some other technical reason ?

(is a /64 address are a 'sinkhole' the only reason ? )


Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roland Dobbins" <rdobbins () arbor net>
> To: "nanog () nanog org list" <nanog () nanog org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 2:00:21 AM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal () snappytelecom net> wrote:
>
> > For Router Loopback Address .... what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs /128
> > ?
>
> In the BCOP, this is noted so that those who suboptimally address their p-t-p
> links with /64s can be consistently suboptimal by doing the same with their
> loopbacks, so that *all* their interfaces are sinkholes.
>
> But the BCOP also talks about /128s.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>
>                    Equo ne credite, Teucri.
>
>                         -- Laocoön