What's the point of that? Is it to allow yourself to migrate back to a /64 in the event the /127 causes issues?
CJ Sent from my iPhone On Sep 13, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Marko Milivojevic <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
