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@arbor.net> To: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@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@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@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Equo ne credite, Teucri.
-- Laocoön