Re: Ipv6 addressing for Core network

[Vikas Sharma <vikassharmas () gmail com>]

HI Geroge,

Thanks for the input. Appreciate some more info wrt TCAM usuage if possible.

Another thought, I agree ip schema is individual preference, but I want to
know the best practise (vague term best practice). Personally even I am in
favor of /64 p-t-p.
Regards,
Vikas
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:11 PM, George Bonser <gbonser () seven com> wrote:

>  > I am looking for the recommendation for core interfaces IP addressing
> > schema
> > for Ipv6. Some different views are (PE- P - PE, point to point link)
> as
> > below -
> >
> > 1-  Use Public Ipv6 with /122 and do not advertise to Internet
> > 2-  Use Public Ipv6 with /127 and do not advertise to Internet
> > 3-  Use Unique local ipv6 address
> > 4- Use Public Ipv6 with /64
> >
> > Also I am interested to understand the impact on TCAM ...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vikas
>
> I would use a /64 with ND turned off and static neighbors configured.
> TCAM impact will depend on vendor.  Some vendors give you the option of
> storing the first 64 bits of a V6 IP or the entire address.  Using a /64
> means your CAM usage might be less depending on your vendor.
>
> If the addresses on the point-to-point links never accept or source
> direct traffic to/from outside your net, you can use whatever you want
> on them.  ULA might be ok there.  I am using public IPs but I filter
> traffic destined for them at the edge but to each their own choice.  But
> if you use ULA you aren't going to be able to ping anything outside your
> net if you source the pings from the ULA interface.  Just something to
> keep in mind.
>
> What you are asking is a matter of individual preference.