Yes and no; RFC6164 is attempting to make that more acceptable. Although; the only thing that pushed us from /30 to /31 in IPv4 was the address space crunch; that doesn't exist in the IPv6 world; so using /127 instead of /126 really doesn't seem to buy us much. On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:00 PM, McCall, Gabriel <Gabriel.McCall@thyssenkrupp.com> wrote:
Note that /127 is strongly discouraged in RFC5375 and RFC3627. 3627 suggests using /112 for router links, or /126 at the very most.
-----Original Message----- From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] ... I see no reason you couldn't use a /127 prefix if the link was point to point. ...
-- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System http://www.networkmaine.net/