Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

[Jesse DuPont]

We "allocate" a /64 to each PtP link, but actually use a /126 (or /127) mask so packets addressed to the remainder of the /64 simply get dropped because there is no route in the table. Jesse DuPont Network Architect email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net Celerity Networks LLC Celerity Broadband LLC Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband On 1/15/17 10:36 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 1/15/17 8:55 AM, Justin Wilson wrote: 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. It's not all about conservation, which is why I pointed out that an RFC does indeed exist for the case of longer prefixes on router interfaces. Whether those things are important or not is an exercise left up to the reader. ~Seth