nanog mailing list archives
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:24:22 +1030
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:12:04 +1030 Glen Turner <gdt () gdt id au> wrote:
On 24/01/10 12:54, Owen DeLong wrote:Use the /64... It's OK... IPv6 was designed with that in mind.I'd suggest using a /126. For two reasons. 1) Using EUI-64 addresses on router-router links is an error, the consequences of which you encounter the first time you replace some faulty hardware.[1] I have made this error :-( If you are not using EUI-64 then assigning a non-autoconf /64 is no less or more work than assigning a non-autoconf /126.
So all that's really saying is that you shouldn't use node addresses derived from link layer addresses, due to the risk of them changing when you swap out an interface, which makes sense. I don't think that argument really supports not using /64s though, as <blah>::1/64 and <blah>::2/64 would achieve that too.
2) Having a block of addresses for router-router links (and other blocks for other infrastructure such as loopbacks and unicast) makes ACLs much simpler. Using a /126 means that this block can last for a long, long time, reducing configuration maintenance.
With a /48, the recommended size for an end-site, giving you 65 536 subnets, you could reserve the top quarter 16 384 subnets for your point to point links and loopbacks (or split that in half to separate loopbacks and p-to-p links), and then cover them with ACL them with <blah>:c000::/50, and still have 49 152 subnets for your edge/services LANs. Regards, Mark.
Cheers, Glen [1] Basically, interface addresses end up scattered through the router's configuration (some manufacturers are better than others in this regard). Tracking down all the references to an address and changing the config merely as the result of a hardware swap is painful and adds complexity at a time when it is not desired. -- Glen Turner <http://www.gdt.id.au/~gdt/> Network Engineer Australia's Academic & Research Network <http://www.aarnet.edu.au/>
Current thread:
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links, (continued)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Owen DeLong (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Larry Sheldon (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Owen DeLong (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Joe Maimon (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Daniel Senie (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Joe Maimon (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Aaron C. de Bruyn (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Joel Jaeggli (Jan 29)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Nathan Ward (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Owen DeLong (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Richard A Steenbergen (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mathias Seiler (Jan 25)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Matt Addison (Jan 25)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Igor Gashinsky (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Steve Bertrand (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Grzegorz Janoszka (Jan 27)