Yep, that is the recommended way to do things .. for good reasons ... http://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/PL12/maia.pdf
Another great presentation, enven though it is Mikrotik Centric.. but the core issues apply across the board. Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 12:12:55 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6 > We "allocate" a /64 to each PtP link, but actually use a /126 (or /127) mask > so > packets addressed to the remainder of the /64 simply get dropped because there > is no route in the table. > Jesse DuPont > Network Architect > email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net > Celerity Networks LLC > Celerity Broadband LLC > Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc > Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband > On 1/15/17 10:36 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> On 1/15/17 8:55 AM, Justin Wilson wrote: >>> Anything longer than a /64 will break SLAAC, neighbor discovery, and >>> other v6 “stuff”. If you don’t need these then a /127 is for you. Just >>> know the downsides of a /64 vs a /127. The RFC says you can do it, but >>> it conflicts with the before mentioned V6 stuff. Frankly I don’t care >>> about conserving IPV6 space. >> It's not all about conservation, which is why I pointed out that an RFC does >> indeed exist for the case of longer prefixes on router interfaces. Whether >> those things are important or not is an exercise left up to the reader. >> ~Seth
