Thanks for the replies... Yeah, I'm getting various pieces of feedback - I'm going with the /126 for point to point and /128 for loopback on core devices at this point. I don't trust the autoconfiguration ideas at this point (call it old school) anyways...;)
Paul -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin M. Streiner Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IPv6 Subnetting - Service Provider On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Paul Stewart wrote: > In a SP environment, what's common practice so far with subnetting? > Typically, in IPv4 today we use a /30 or /29 for point to point and each > device has a /32 loopback... > > I've been reading a lot of different opinions and everyone seems to > recommend a /64 for each link (router) or a server - why so large? I'd love > to see a layout of a few routers in a SP core network and how they've > subnetted them....;) This debate rolled on NANOG a few weeks ago. People generally broke into two camps - one advocated using /64s on point-to-point links, and the other advocated smaller subnets such as /126 for point-to-points and /128s for loopbacks. So, I guess the consensus is that there isn't one :) jms _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
