There are some good reasons for it. The recommendation is still to assign /64 blocks for p2p links, but configure them as /127.
-- Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 :: This message was sent from a mobile device. I apologize for errors and brevity. :: On Sep 12, 2012, at 14:22, Bal Birdy <[email protected]> wrote: > Marko which rfc references /127 recommendation? From my understanding /64 are > required to support NDP features, given you only have ie neighbor this is a > not pointless. So is this why they have moved away from the hard and fast /64 > everywhere rule. > > Thanks > > On Sep 13, 2012 7:17 AM, "Marko Milivojevic" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
