Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica () juniper net> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Discussion of draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p is on the IETF 6man WG
> mailing list. But please do chime in. Operator input very welcomed.

oh damned it! almost as many v6 ietf mailing lists as there are v6 addresses :(
subscribe info: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>

Thanks!
-Chris

> Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
> > <mathias.seiler () mironet ch> wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know what is your experience with IPv6 in 
> > > this regard.
> > >
> > > I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link between two routers. This works great 
> > > but when I think that I'm wasting 2^64 - 2 addresses here it feels plain wrong.
> > >
> > > So what do you think? Good? Bad? Ugly? /127 ? ;)
> >
> > <cough>draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt</cough>
> >
> > (<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt>)
> >
> > why not just ping your vendors to support this, and perhaps chime in
> > on v6ops about wanting to do something sane with ptp link addressing?
> > :)
> >
> > -Chris