On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler > <mathias.sei...@mironet.ch> wrote: >> Hi >> >> In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know >> what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard. >> >> I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link >> between two routers. This works great but when I think that I'm wasting 2^64 >> - 2 addresses here it feels plain wrong. >> >> So what do you think? Good? Bad? Ugly? /127 ? ;) > > <cough>draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt</cough> > > (<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt>) > > why not just ping your vendors to support this, and perhaps chime in > on v6ops about wanting to do something sane with ptp link addressing? > :)
a kind soul or 2 asked: "How do I sign up for the v6ops mailing list?" (it's actually the ipv6 wg mailing list) <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> should get you there... -Chris