IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address

Sat Oct 11 06:33:11 UTC 2014

> In the BCOP, this is noted so that those who suboptimally address their p-t-p
> links with /64s can be consistently suboptimal by doing the same with their
> loopbacks,

I am trying to understand what is sub-optimal about doing so...Waste of Ipv6 space ? or some other technical reason ?

(is a /64 address are a 'sinkhole' the only reason ? )

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roland Dobbins" <rdobbins at arbor.net>
> To: "nanog at nanog.org list" <nanog at nanog.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 2:00:21 AM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address
> 
> 
> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal at snappytelecom.net> wrote:
> 
> > For Router Loopback Address .... what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs /128
> > ?
> 
> In the BCOP, this is noted so that those who suboptimally address their p-t-p
> links with /64s can be consistently suboptimal by doing the same with their
> loopbacks, so that *all* their interfaces are sinkholes.
> 
> But the BCOP also talks about /128s.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
> 
>                    Equo ne credite, Teucri.
> 
>     		   	  -- Laocoön
> 
>