On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
Chris,
Discussion of draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p is on the IETF 6man WG mailing list. But please do chime in. Operator input very welcomed.
oh damned it! almost as many v6 ietf mailing lists as there are v6 addresses :( subscribe info: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> Thanks! -Chris
Christopher Morrow 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>)
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