IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
Crist.Clark at globalstar.com
Mon Jan 24 18:22:58 CST 2011
>>> On 1/24/2011 at 5:18 AM, <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 02:10:48PM +0100, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>> > 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
>> > 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.
> this results in -very- sparse matrix allocation - which is fine, as long as you
> believe that
> you'll never run out/make mistakes. personally, i've use /126 for the past
> 12 years w/o any
> there was never supposed to be a hard split at /64 - it was done as a means
> to simplify autoconfig.
All of the (mostly religious) arguments about /64 versus any
smaller subnets aside, I'm curious about why one would choose
/126 over /127 for P-to-P links? Is this some kind of IPv4-think
where the all-zeros and all-ones addresses are not usable
unicast addresses? This isn't true in IPv6 (of course, it's not
strictly true in IPv4 either). Is there another reason?
Network Security Specialist, Information Systems
408 933 4387
More information about the NANOG