Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

[Marco Hogewoning <mch-nanog () xs4all nl>]

> While reading up on IPv6, I've seen numerous places that subnets are now
> all /64.
>
> I have even read that subnets defined as /127 are considered harmful.

RFC3627, with a lot of discussion in the IETF on this. See also 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p/

> However while implementing IPv6 in our network, I've encountered several
> of our peering partners using /127 or /126 for point-to-point links.

I personally don't any benefit in using /126 subnets.

> What is the Best Current Practice for this - if there is any?
>
> Would you recommend me to use /64, /126 or /127? 
>
> What are the pros and cons?

From an operational point of view there is a risk that be using /64 somebody can eat away a lot of memory by either 
scanning or even changing addresses. This is also described in the draft above...

I would personally recommend to at least always assign the /64, even if you would decide to configure the /127. RFC 
3627 has been around long enough that you will keep running into equipment or software that won't like the /127. In 
which case you can always revert back to /64.
This will also allow you to use easy to remember addresses like ::1 and ::2, saving you the headache of a lot of binary 
counting.

Grtx,

Marco