On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:08:05 -0500 Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler <mathias.seiler@mironet.ch> wrote:
Hi
In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link between two routers. This works great but when I think that I'm wasting 2^64 - 2 addresses here it feels plain wrong.
So what do you think? Good? Bad? Ugly? /127 ? ;)
<cough>draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt</cough>
(<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt>)
<cough>Internet Draft</cough>
No disrespect to the people who've written it, however it's a draft at this point, not an RFC.
absolutely. so... if it's of interest, speak up (on the v6 wg mailing list) or let the authors know.
The current IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture RFC (RFC4291) says,
" For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in Modified EUI-64 format"
If that draft is going to go anywhere, then I would expect there also needs to be a new version of RFC4291.
I believe the authors know this as well. -Chris
why not just ping your vendors to support this, and perhaps chime in on v6ops about wanting to do something sane with ptp link addressing? :)
-Chris