Again, there are some sound reasons for it (which I can't remember now), but I believe it has to do with the consistent assignment policies.
-- Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 (SP R&S) Senior CCIE Instructor - IPexpert On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:16 AM, CJ Infantino <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
