Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)

[Octavio Alvarez <octalnanog () alvarezp org>]

On 12/28/2017 11:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > 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 practice used most places is to assign a /64 and put a /127 on the interfaces.

Thanks for the info. Is this documented somewhere? Is there a
disadvantage in letting many P2P links use different /127 networks
within the same /64?

Best regards,
Octavio.