[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)]