Hi, On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:53:36PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi, > > > Op 11 okt. 2014, om 23:00 heeft Roland Dobbins <[email protected]> het > > volgende geschreven: > > > >> On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Tim Raphael <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> From my research, various authorities have recommended that a single /64 > >>> be allocated to router loopbacks with /128s assigned on interfaces. > >> > >> Yes, this is what I advocate for loopbacks. > > I often use the first /64 for loopbacks.
I'm not a big fan of using all-zero third or fourth quarters of $PREFIX at all (at least not if one follows RFC 5952 & uses static, short IIDs, which will be case for loopbacks). On a crowded visio diagram it might not be easy to spot that 2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:0:1::1, 2001:db8:1::1 and 2001:db8:1:1::1 are all different addresses, potentially on the same hierarchy level. Hence we prefer to use FFFF or just FF "at some point within the prefix" for loopbacks, e.g. 2001:db8:FF::1 etc. best Enno Loopbacks are often used for management, iBGP etc and having short and easy to read addresses can be helpful. Something like 2001:db8::1 is easier to remember and type correctly than e.g. 2001:db8:18ba:ff42::1 :) > > Cheers, > Sander > -- Enno Rey ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey ======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================
