On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: > Chris, > > Discussion of draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p is on the IETF 6man WG > mailing list. But please do chime in. Operator input very welcomed.
oh damned it! almost as many v6 ietf mailing lists as there are v6 addresses :( subscribe info: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> Thanks! -Chris > Christopher Morrow 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>) >> >> 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 >> >> >