I don't see any point of using larger Network space for point to point links or on loopback addresses. To me the best is that 127-Bit prefixes on IPv6 point-to-point links and /128 on Loopback serves the purpose, and offers us a lot of advantages such as it prevents us from neighbor discovery exhaustion attack (rfc6583) Draft is mainly referring to end user WAN links (i.e. xDSL, Cable, FTTN/H) and that's a different story where /64 /56 /48 are still open to dispute :P On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Kody Vicknair <kvicknair@reservetele.com> wrote:
All,
I’ve been doing some reading in preparation of IPv6 deployment and figuring out how we will break up our /32. I think I’m on the right track in thinking that each customer will be allocated a /48 to do whatever they wish with it.
I’ve read recent BCOP drafts that have been approved by the IETF: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554 It looks like the smallest subnet that should ever be assigned is a /64 on a particular link.
Some questions that come to mind with IPv6:
In regards to Point to point links my thinking is this: Assign a unique /64 to each point to point link with these addresses being Globally routable. This seems to be what our IX providers do when assigning us an IPv6 address. Am I correct in this train of thought? Why/Why not?
In regards to core loopback addressing my initial thoughts are as follows: Assign a single /64 encompassing all /128’s planned for loopback addressing schemes. Should I be using Unique Local addressing for loopbacks instead of going with a Globally routeable addressing scheme? Should each interface IP configuration have a /64 or a /128?
Also when talking about CPE mgmt addresses what do you think is a practical way of going about assigning “Private” addressing schemes for cpe management purposes.
I’m sure some of these questions will be answered when I dive deeper into how OSPFv6 works as well as BGP in regards to IPv6.
Are any of you currently running IPv6 and wished you had done something differently during the planning phase that may have prevented headaches down the road?
Kody Vicknair Network Engineer
[cid:imagebf3343.JPG@c9d2fbd2.4db10e0d] <http://www.rtconline.com>
Tel: 985.536.1214 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: kvicknair@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com
Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084
Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Kody Vicknair immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Kody Vicknair therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.