On 10/12/14 3:00 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Faisal Imtiaz <[email protected]> > wrote: >> A follow up question on this topic.. >> >> For Router Loopback Address .... what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs /128 ? >> (the BCOP document suggests this, but does not offer any explanation or >> merits of one over the other). > > Hi Faisal, > > One of the viewpoints held by some in the IETF is that an IPv6 address > is not 128 bits. Rather, it is 64 bits of network space and 64 bits of > host space. I'm told this viewpoint is responsible for the existence > of a 128 bit address instead of IPv6 using 64 bit addresses. > > If you follow that reasoning, the subnet mask should always be /64, no > matter where the address is assigned.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164 Is a standards track document. it is imho a repudiation of the assumptions about the dimensions of the host field. > There are, of course, excellent operational reasons not to religiously > follow that plan. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
