[ipv6-wg] /127 for point to point links
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] /127 for point to point links
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] /127 for point to point links
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Skeeve Stevens
Skeeve at eintellego.net
Fri Feb 12 12:54:36 CET 2010
Generally here we're using /112's for P2P links.... ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve at eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there? > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Vegard Svanberg > Sent: Friday, 12 February 2010 9:10 PM > To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [ipv6-wg] /127 for point to point links > > Hello. We've stumbled across a problem with a router manufacturer, > which > won't implement support for /127 prefix lengths. Now, we do have > peering/transit partners using /127 on their p2p links. The result is > that we either cannot peer with them, or will have to get new routers. > > RFC 3627 states that /127 is considered harmful, however I do feel this > RFC confuse people since it doesn't propose a definite solution. It > suggests a number of solutions and indicates using /64 is the right > thing. I must say I strongly disagree on that conclusion. Wasting so > much address space on point to point links just makes no sense to me. > > So I'm not sure what to do here. I have to convince someone; either our > partners or the router manufacturer. I have the impression that /127 is > used widely out there. > > -- > Vegard Svanberg <vegard at svanberg.no> [*Takapa at IRC (EFnet)]
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] /127 for point to point links
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] /127 for point to point links
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]