On 6/28/17 18:10, Olivier Benghozi wrote:
Well, /112 is not a stupid option (and is far smarter than /64): it contains the whole last nibble of an IPv6, that is x:x:x:x:x:x:x:1234. You always put 1 or 2 at the end, and if needed you are still able to address additional stuff would the point-to-point link become a LAN. And you don't throw away billions of addresses like with /64. If you were subnetting down from /64 for the purposes of preventing ndp exhaustion or to protect the control plane on either yours or your customers platforms then a /112 is pretty useless because 16 bits is harmful enough.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164
On 29 jun 2017 at 02:32, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote :
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Aaron Gould <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:
I think this is funny... I have (4) 10 gig internet connections and here's the maskings for my v6 dual stacking...
/126 - telia /64 - att /112 - cogent /127 - twc/charter/spectrum 112... Could be worse I suppose. They could have picked 113.