Re: IPv6 P-to-P Address allocation

ccieking

There was actually a followup draft which goes into use of /127 not
considered harmful:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt

/127 was considered harmful due to subnet router anycast, however if that is
not enabled, then its fine to use, and in fact its quite widely used.
However, /112, /120, /126 & /64 are also used on pt2pt links...

2010/1/27 Scott Morris <smorris_at_ine.com>

> The latest BCP seems to be to use a /126.
>
> B
>
> Scott Morris, CCIEx4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
>
> JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
>
> JNCI-M, JNCI-ER
>
> evil_at_ine.com
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
>
> http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
>
> Toll Free: 877-224-8987
>
> Outside US: 775-826-4344
>
> Knowledge is power.
>
> Power corrupts.
>
> Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......
>
> ccieking_at_gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hello Experts,
> I would like to welcome your guidance about the IPv6 address allocation in
> point-to-point link.
> After reading RFC3627 b Use of /127 Prefix Length between Routers
> Considered
> Harmfulb ----
> Which is the best method for addressing in a Point-to-Point IPv6 link?
> Using /64 prefix waste lot of addresses and seem ugly.
> Any best real life scenario?
> Advance thanks.....
> Li
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Regards
Roy
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net