nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
From: Lasse Jarlskov <laja () telenor dk>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:44:34 +0100
Thank you all for your comments - it appears that there is no consensus on how this should be done. Thank you for the reference to this draft, Marco - and to Ron as well. Both RFC3627 and this draft appears to be stating that these issues a implementation-specific. E.g. whether an implementation will perform subnet-router-anycast on a small subnet, whether Neighbor-Discovery-messages are rate-limited etc. Does anyone have any information on how different vendors handle this - even in older software? /126 appears to be the middle path - which is reserving the subnet-router-anycast address while keeping the subnet as small as possible. This appears to address both issues - at least for Ethernet links. (one free address will hardly constitute a potential Neighbor Cache Exhaustion issue). Best regards, /Lasse -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Marco Hogewoning [mailto:mch-nanog () xs4all nl] Sendt: 24. januar 2011 14:11 Til: Lasse Jarlskov Cc: nanog () nanog org Emne: Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
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
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links, (continued)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Blake Hudson (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Gary Buhrmaster (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Seth Mattinen (Jan 31)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Skeeve Stevens (Jan 24)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links ML (Jan 26)
- Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links Tim Durack (Jan 25)