[ipv6-wg] /127 for point to point links

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)]