Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 10:34 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> 
> wrote:
> 
> This may be useful:
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690/
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> -Mensaje original-
> De: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> en nombre de Octavio Alvarez 
> <octalna...@alvarezp.org>
> Responder a: <octalna...@alvarezp.org>
> Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 19:31
> Para: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
> CC: <nanog@nanog.org>
> Asunto: Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)
> 
>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?

Primarily human factors.

Owen

> 
>Best regards,
>Octavio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
> individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
> considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 

Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

This may be useful:

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690/

Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> en nombre de Octavio Alvarez 
<octalna...@alvarezp.org>
Responder a: <octalna...@alvarezp.org>
Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 19:31
Para: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
CC: <nanog@nanog.org>
Asunto: Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)

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.




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)

[Octavio Alvarez]

On 12/28/2017 11:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez  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.