Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

Fri Oct 15 22:38:18 UTC 2010

but then, can't we use ip unumbered on p2p links on cisco?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Smith" <nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: "Zaid Ali" <zaid at zaidali.com>
Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Sent: Saturday, 16 October, 2010 10:21:03 AM
Subject: Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

Hi,

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:26:13 -0700
Zaid Ali <zaid at zaidali.com> wrote:

> SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
> some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
> /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is
> some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64.
> 

If you're not going to follow the IPv6 Addressing Architecture, which
says /64s for everything, then the prefix length decision is
pretty much arbitrary - there is nothing that special
about /112s, /126s, /127s or /128s (or /120s or /80s) - they all break
something in the existing IPv6 RFCs so once you've passed that threshold
then you're really only choosing your poison. If you're going to go
down that latter path, I'd suggest reserving a /64 for each link, and
then using a longer prefix length out of that /64 when you configure
the addressing, to make it easier if you decided to change back to /64s
at a later time.

Regards,
Mark.