The section on “reasons for using longer prefixes”, specifically: 

5.2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164#section-5.2>. Neighbor Cache 
Exhaustion Issue

Intrigues me.  How someone could exhaust my neighbor cache by targeting every 
address in my PTP /64 :)

I dont think you really need SLAAC for PTP links anyway if you’re manually 
configuring those sorts of interfaces, which I do. Or I can just use link-local 
on internal PTPs.  Other /64-ish features like RS/RA I don’t particularly need 
on PTP links. 

-c

> On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Justin Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> But, as with anything, you have tradeoffs.
> 
> Routers MUST support the assignment of /127 prefixes on point-to-
>    point inter-router links.  Routers MUST disable Subnet-Router anycast
>    for the prefix when /127 prefixes are used.
> 
> 
> Anything longer than a /64 will break SLAAC, neighbor discovery, and other v6 
> “stuff”.  If you don’t need these then a /127 is for you. Just know the 
> downsides of a /64 vs a /127. The RFC says you can do it, but it conflicts 
> with the before mentioned V6 stuff.   Frankly I don’t care about conserving 
> IPV6 space.  
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Wilson
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> 
> ---
> http://www.mtin.net <http://www.mtin.net/> Owner/CEO
> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
> 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>  COO/Chairman
> Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric
> 
>> On Jan 15, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Seth Mattinen <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 1/15/17 8:08 AM, Justin Wilson wrote:
>>> -assign a /64 for point to point links (aka the equivalent of /30s).
>>> Again, don’t think in terms of host count.  anything smaller than /64’s
>>> breaks things.  Some providers out there assign smaller blocks, but it
>>> breaks things and isn’t RFC. Using a /128 is a hot debate at the moment.
>>> Some folks are willing to live with the stuff that is broken. The whole
>>> /127 or /128 debate came up due to security concerns mainly.
>> 
>> 
>> Use of /127 on router links is RFC 6164
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164>
>> 
> 

Reply via email to