This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[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 ]
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Fri Feb 12 17:21:39 CET 2010
> RFC 3627 is informational RFC. Does not describe any strict > rules. Read the RFC and understand /127 is harmful only in > certain cases: > poin-to-point link + usage of subnet anycast. Other problems > might exist as described in section 5. Chaos is harmful. Following consistent best practice on peering links is a good idea. > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt Yes, perhaps saying that /64 on all peering links is a bit too simplistic. Nevertheless, I do believe that everyone should follow best practice on peering links. This WG seems like a good place to agree on the specifics of what that best practice is since RFC 3627 is a bit too general for this. What do others think of drafting an IPv6 best practices document in this WG that is specifically for network operators? --Michael Dillon
- 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 ]