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] IPv6 on P2P links
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Pierre-Yves Maunier
pymaunier at neotelecoms.com
Thu May 26 10:46:50 CEST 2011
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > > on our side we use /126 for P2P links. I've heard some others using /64 or /127. > > Some allocate a /64 but configure a /126 to always have :1 and :2 in order to avoid mistakes by calculating the good hosts ip addresses. > > Curious, why did you pick /126 ? What do you do with ::0 and ::3 ? > > Marco I understand that you asked (and in fact we use /31 for IPv4 P2P links). The fact is that when I decided the addressing plan, I was looking for implementation stories from others and based on what I've read, we decided to go on /126. No real reasons. We're always open to look deeper and make changes if necessary. We had to make a decision at this time and we went to /126 over /127 mainly because of RFC3627. Our main goal was to deploy IPv6 and tried to quickly find a good way to subnet our block. Regards, -- Pierre-Yves Maunier AS8218 IP/Project Engineer tel +33 1 49 97 07 45 mob +33 6 30 92 18 36 fax +33 1 49 97 07 30 pymaunier at neotelecoms.com Neotelecoms 21 rue La Boétie, 75008 Paris, France
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]