05-18-2011 01:25 PM - edited 05-18-2011 01:26 PM
our ISP assigned us a /126 for our p2p link with them..and other one gave us /64 for their p2p..at this point.there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what should be used..
/126 is eqivlent of /30..any thoughts about that?
can be use .1 and .2 and .5 and .6 and so on...
05-19-2011 02:58 AM
I believe there was a presentation at one of the NANOG sessions regarding this.
They stated that best to allocate a /64 to each link but at the moment to actually use a /127 on that prefix for the link.
the reason was because of possible security issues at the moment.
05-27-2011 10:46 AM
05-27-2011 02:40 PM
Miya Kohno and Becca Nitzan from Juniper Networks just recently authored RFC 6164 "Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links"
05-27-2011 09:45 PM
Thanks. The phrase 'broadside of a barn' comes to mind every time I read an IPv6 archtecture document, for better or worse.
05-28-2011 06:40 AM
I agree. This seems to be a case of those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.
In the early days of ipv4 large address spaces were passed out like free candy to big companies. Many of these are still not in use on the internet. Others were successfully reclaimed and redeployed by an arduous process. But the feeling at the time was that the address space was so large it would not matter.
So here we are again with an enormous address space and again the authorities feel like it is perfectly acceptable to pass out huge swaths of addresses because the space is enormous.