Hi Jordi
It looks good and I agree on /56 (at least) while /48 preferred for business users etc. I always suggest ISPs around to not do /64 as somehow many ISPs get blown away with a number of possible IPv6 addresses in /64 and assume /64 is just enough instead of thinking of /64 per link/VLAN logic. Regarding point to point recommendation I feel /64 per link makes sense. One may argue on /56 Vs /64 for customer allocation due to allocation by RIR but for point to point why not /64. Even if one ends up in burning entire /48, it gives 65k p2p links. The Larger operator can use a /46 or /44 for such task (and likely they would anyway have a /29 RIR allocation). /127 makes it tricky to change network later. I know an ISP here in India who started deploying IPv6 with their NAS devices on different VLANs (for WAN of NAS) and later decided to actually share LAN since there were limited NAS boxes and they could trust their own NAS ended up in re-numbering entirely from /127 per link to /64 one link. If they used /64 in start itself, renumbering would never be needed. Also, curious about how people manage VRRP (and similar) in /127 allocations. Thanks again for sharing the document. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < [email protected]> wrote: > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690/ > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of > the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this > communication and delete it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > apnic-talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk > -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com
_______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
