Marko,

Although /127s proved to be stable in a test environment I wasn't comfortable 
using /127s in production. At that time there were some uncertainties with 
different vendors playing nice with /127s on p2p links.  using /126s was a 
safer option in a multivendor shop.    

Bal, I believe Marko was talking about RFC 6164.  


-max

-----Original Message-----
From: Marko Milivojevic [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:17 PM
To: Max Kamali
Cc: Bal Birdy; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Stupid question time - IPV6 VLSM

I'm curious - why would you use /126 instead of RFC-recommended /127?

--
Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 (SP R&S) Senior CCIE Instructor - IPexpert

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Max Kamali <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bal,
>
> I use /126s for point to point links (only) in production and they 
> work just fine. Tuscany networks created a fantastic free IPv6 subnet 
> calculator, aka TN IPv6 calculator.
>
> -max
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bal Birdy
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:41 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Stupid question time - IPV6 VLSM
>
> Ok I know that it's stipulated that IPv6 should be a /64, and never 
> really change, but I came across some slides talking about using /126 
> or /127s for point to point links (which sparked a discussion at 
> work). Thinking along the lines of the /30 concept with IPv4, for 
> arguments sake, if I wanted to work out what IP addresses I can 
> manually configure on either end of my p2p link, that's using IPv6, am 
> I right in saying I use the same approach as with IPv4 for working out the IP 
> addresses.
>
> So if I say a /126 is - 1111111111111100 in binary. The last two bits 
> give me networks of 0,4,8 and so on. with usable ip's of 1,2 and 3. 
> Now the 3 comes into play as there's no concept of broadcast in IPv6 
> (!?), so why do we need the broadcast IP as previously required for IPv4???
>
> Is this technically correct?
>
> Thanks
> Bal
> _______________________________________________
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, 
> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>
> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
>
> _______________________________________________
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, 
> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>
> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs

_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs

Reply via email to