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

[Carlos Martinez]

My vote is for /112 too, or unconventional things like /96, only because it's shorter to write. 

And that's because Arturo talked me into accepting nibble bounda

Sent from a mobile device

On Jun 6, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Arturo Servin <aservin en lacnic.net> wrote:

> 
> 
>    Good points!
> 
>    /64 is very convenient that fits all, but also may have some security issues. 112 does not sound bad at all.
> 
> Cheers
> .as    
> 
> 
> On 6 Jun 2012, at 18:40, Sascha E. Pollok wrote:
> 
>> For many years -be it good or bad but it was quite convenient- we have been using /112 for all types of "transfer"(tm) networks. It leaves enough room for setting up more than 2-4 hosts in case of VRRPv6 or HSRPv6 or
>> Anycast setups (in case of a customer connected to redundant PE routers).
>> 
>> Yes, one could argue that a /124 could be enough too but a /126 is a bit
>> too small. Size does matter sometimes!
>> 
>> Going /112 for all cases of transfer-networks gives room for some flexibility.
>> 
>> -Sascha
>> 
>> On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> 
>>> Muchos creemos que un /126 es suficiente, pero no todos creemos que sea lo más conveniente.
>>> =D
>>> /as
>>> On 5 Jun 2012, at 18:24, Nicolas Antoniello wrote:
>>> 
>>>     Me es grato saber que no estoy solo en la creencia de que un /126 es
>>>     suficiente para una PtP !!!
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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