Re: Point 2 point IPs between ASes

[joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On 6/28/17 18:10, Olivier Benghozi wrote:
> Well, /112 is not a stupid option (and is far smarter than /64): it contains the whole last nibble of an IPv6, that 
> is x:x:x:x:x:x:x:1234.
> You always put 1 or 2 at the end, and if needed you are still able to address additional stuff would the 
> point-to-point link become a LAN.
> And you don't throw away billions of addresses like with /64.
If you were subnetting down from /64 for the purposes of preventing ndp
exhaustion or to protect the control plane  on either yours or your
customers platforms then a /112 is pretty useless because 16 bits is
harmful enough.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164
> > On 29 jun 2017 at 02:32, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote :
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Aaron Gould <aaron1 () gvtc com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is funny... I have (4) 10 gig internet connections and here's
> > > the maskings for my v6 dual stacking...
> > >
> > > /126 - telia
> > > /64  - att
> > > /112 - cogent
> > > /127 - twc/charter/spectrum
> > 112... Could be worse I suppose. They could have picked 113.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature