/126 also falls on nibble, so it's a little easier to keep track of. I know several other shops that use /126 for that reason as well.
-- max On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Max Kamali <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
