[lacnog] Fwd: [afnog] IPv 6 Point to Point at /64?

[Rodrigo Arenas]

+1
On Jun 6, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:

> You are not alone
> 
> On 6/5/12, Nicolas Antoniello <nantoniello en gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hace poco en la lista y el el evento de LACNIC de Quito intercambiamos
>> opiniones sobre "que es lo más adecuado para direccionamiento de una
>> punto a punto"...
>> 
>> Les adjunto 2 mails sobre la discusión de los /64 para interfaces
>> punto a punto... (de un thread de AFNOG).
>> 
>> Me es grato saber que no estoy solo en la creencia de que un /126 es
>> suficiente para una PtP !!!
>> 
>> Saludos,
>> Nicolas
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer en nic.fr>
>> Date: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:28 AM
>> Subject: Re: [afnog] IPv 6 Point to Point at /64?
>> To: Yasini Kilima <ykilima en tra.go.tz>
>> Cc: "afnog en afnog.org" <afnog en afnog.org>
>> 
>>> I know RFC 4291 requires us to configure our Point to Point hosts on
>>> ipv6 at /64
>> 
>> It has been deprecated by RFC 6164 "Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on
>> Inter-Router Links", which recommends a /127.
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka en seacom.mu> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 05, 2012 02:10:58 PM Yasini Kilima wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Can you please Advise on this?
>>> 
>>> At the end of the day, do what you feel is good for your
>>> network, provided you don't veer too far away from common
>>> network practice.
>>> 
>>> We use /126's for point-to-point links, /112's for LAN's,
>>> /48 for large customer assignment and /56's for small/medium
>>> customer assignments.
>>> 
>>> Other networks do other things.
>>> 
>>> The one thing to remember is if you want SLAAC, you need to
>>> run a /64 on that LAN.
>>> 
>>> The RFC's are great, but they don't always reflect
>>> operatioinal realities. So ingest them but be mindful of
>>> common sense too. In the end, the RFC's will rewrite
>>> themselves to catch up with the day.
>>> 
>>> Mark.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> LACNOG mailing list
>> LACNOG en lacnic.net
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> 

------------ próxima parte ------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1683 bytes
Desc: no disponible
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20120606/78808c0e/attachment.bin>
------------ próxima parte ------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20120606/78808c0e/attachment.sig>