On 6/28/17 18:10, Olivier Benghozi wrote: > Well, /112 is not a stupid option (and is far smarter than /64): it contains > the whole last nibble of an IPv6, that is x:x:x:x:x:x:x:1234. > You always put 1 or 2 at the end, and if needed you are still able to address > additional stuff would the point-to-point link become a LAN. > And you don't throw away billions of addresses like with /64. If you were subnetting down from /64 for the purposes of preventing ndp exhaustion or to protect the control plane on either yours or your customers platforms then a /112 is pretty useless because 16 bits is harmful enough.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164 >> On 29 jun 2017 at 02:32, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote : >> >> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Aaron Gould <aar...@gvtc.com> wrote: >> >>> I think this is funny... I have (4) 10 gig internet connections and here's >>> the maskings for my v6 dual stacking... >>> >>> /126 - telia >>> /64 - att >>> /112 - cogent >>> /127 - twc/charter/spectrum >> 112... Could be worse I suppose. They could have picked 113. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature