On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Mark Smith <na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:08:05 -0500 > 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>) >> > > <cough>Internet Draft</cough> > > No disrespect to the people who've written it, however it's a draft at > this point, not an RFC.
absolutely. so... if it's of interest, speak up (on the v6 wg mailing list) or let the authors know. > The current IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture RFC (RFC4291) says, > > " For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary > value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be > constructed in Modified EUI-64 format" > > If that draft is going to go anywhere, then I would expect there also > needs to be a new version of RFC4291. I believe the authors know this as well. -Chris > >> 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? >> :) >> >> -Chris >> >