nanog mailing list archives
Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 09:39:54 -0800
On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez <octalnanog () alvarezp org> wrote: On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote:On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6, due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices, you are told to "just use a /64' for your point to points.Isn't it a /127 nowadays, per RFC 6547 and RFC 6164? I guess the exception would be if a router does not support it. Best regards, Octavio.
Best practice used most places is to assign a /64 and put a /127 on the interfaces. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too, (continued)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lee Howard (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Christopher Morrow (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Joe Maimon (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Christopher Morrow (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Octavio Alvarez (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Michael Crapse (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Laszlo Hanyecz (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too James R Cutler (Dec 28)
- RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too Keith Medcalf (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Ricky Beam (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too William Herrin (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 28)