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

> Well, personaly as being the first commecial ipv6 provider in 
> our country I had the same reservations. But after a talk 
> with our IPv6 experts (go6.si) I/we just accepted the fact 
> that we're wasting perfectly good address space and we just 
> put /64 on P2P links...

What would you prefer to waste? Money or address space? If you
use a /64 for every point-to-point circuit then you are wasting
address space, instead of wasting money paying for someone to
put twice as many bits of silicon into the circuitry that
handles routing and forwarding.

Anybody who thinks that doing the "right thing", as advised by
the IETF, is wasteful, needs to get their priorities straight.
We have enough problems getting transitioned to IPv6 and we
don't need providers who think that they are smarter than the
rest of us and will just reinvent the wheel and force /127
prefixes on their peering partners.

Remember this statement? 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.

Using /64 is the right thing. That means that on peering
links with another provider, best practice is to follow
the RFCs and use /64. If you want to experiment with other
prefixes in your network, then go ahead, but on interfaces
with others, follow best practices.

By the way, that also means giving no less than a /56 to
a private residence and no less than a /48 to any site.
It's not your job to tell other people how to run their
network.

--Michael Dillon