On 12/28/2017 11:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez <octalna...@alvarezp.org> wrote: >> >> On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote: >>> On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: >>> Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P >>> link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6, >>> due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices, >>> you are told to "just use a /64' for your point to points. >> >> Isn't it a /127 nowadays, per RFC 6547 and RFC 6164? I guess the >> exception would be if a router does not support it. >> > Best practice used most places is to assign a /64 and put a /127 on the > interfaces. >
Thanks for the info. Is this documented somewhere? Is there a disadvantage in letting many P2P links use different /127 networks within the same /64? Best regards, Octavio.