I have several queries in regards to ipv6 different documentation state that clients be given /64 with ISP's beign given /48 from assigned global /32. Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections? Is there any newbie guide for ipv6 subnetting? Regards, Shake
different documentation state that clients be given /64 with ISP's beign given /48 from assigned global /32.
That should be that ISPs are given a global /32 from which they assign /48s to clients. The client would assign a /64 to each LAN segment.
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood RFC 3627 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627
Is there any newbie guide for ipv6 subnetting?
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Addressing_Plans --Michael Dillon
Thanks On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Michael Dillon <wavetossed@googlemail.com>wrote:
different documentation state that clients be given /64 with ISP's beign given /48 from assigned global /32.
That should be that ISPs are given a global /32 from which they assign /48s to clients. The client would assign a /64 to each LAN segment.
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood RFC 3627 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627
Is there any newbie guide for ipv6 subnetting?
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Addressing_Plans
--Michael Dillon
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood RFC 3627 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627
RFC 3627 *and* the following Internet draft: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-01 The problem with ping-pong on point to point links is real. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:57:41 +0200 (CEST) sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood RFC 3627 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627
RFC 3627 *and* the following Internet draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-01
The problem with ping-pong on point to point links is real.
Only if you disable Neighbor Discovery.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood RFC 3627 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627
RFC 3627 *and* the following Internet draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-01
The problem with ping-pong on point to point links is real.
Only if you disable Neighbor Discovery.
You don't have to disable it. "Small, unknown" vendors like Cisco and Juniper have IPv6 ND disabled on point to point links, and (at least for Juniper) there is no option to turn it on. The problem with ping-pong on point to point links is still very real. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:54:17 +0200 (CEST) sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood RFC 3627 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627
RFC 3627 *and* the following Internet draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-01
The problem with ping-pong on point to point links is real.
Only if you disable Neighbor Discovery.
You don't have to disable it. "Small, unknown" vendors like Cisco and Juniper
As you've already resorted to insulting me, this is my last response. I don't think you're correct.
have IPv6 ND disabled on point to point links, and (at least for Juniper) there is no option to turn it on.
The problem with ping-pong on point to point links is still very real.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
You don't have to disable it. "Small, unknown" vendors like Cisco and Juniper
I don't think you're correct.
have IPv6 ND disabled on point to point links, and (at least for Juniper) there is no option to turn it on.
I encourage people to verify this for themselves. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
On 04/06/10 09:20, shake righa wrote:
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
There was a recent thread here on this topic, see http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04500.html Lorand Jakab
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:20:26 -0400, shake righa <ssrigha@gmail.com> wrote:
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
That's the equiv of a /31 in IPv4. Do you use /31's for p-t-p links in your IPv4 network(s)? (Yes, I've used /31's before, but only to represent 2 /32's. And even that was silly.) --Ricky
Ricky Beam wrote (on Apr 06):
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:20:26 -0400, shake righa <ssrigha@gmail.com> wrote:
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
That's the equiv of a /31 in IPv4. Do you use /31's for p-t-p links in your IPv4 network(s)?
(Yes, I've used /31's before, but only to represent 2 /32's. And even that was silly.)
We use /31 (v4) and /127 (v6) for internal PtPs in our mostly-vendor-C network with no special tweaks or odd behaviour. YMMV. There was a talk at the Austin NANOG on this. I asked the audience in a straw-poll what their PtP v6 netmask preferences were - resoundingly audience support was for /127's. Chris.
On Tuesday 06 April 2010 08:10:14 pm Ricky Beam wrote:
That's the equiv of a /31 in IPv4. Do you use /31's for p-t-p links in your IPv4 network(s)?
Yes, like many others (there was a thread on this on NANOG towards the end of January, no? Yes; started 1/22/2010 by Seth Mattinen; I don't have a link to an archive entry, because I have it in my own archives here). It's amazing how many 'subnetting reference guides' I've found out there that go as far as stating that /31's aren't even legal.... they'd really fall over if they saw how I was using a /27's broadcast address as one end of a /31 in one particular instance.... :-) RFC 3021, man, RFC 3021.
participants (9)
-
Chris Luke -
Lamar Owen -
Lorand Jakab -
Mark Smith -
Michael Dillon -
Randy Bush -
Ricky Beam -
shake righa -
sthaug＠nethelp.no