I don't see any point of using larger Network space for point to point links or on loopback addresses. To me the best is that 127-Bit prefixes on IPv6 point-to-point links and /128 on Loopback serves the purpose, and offers us a lot of advantages such as it prevents us from neighbor discovery exhaustion attack (rfc6583)
Draft is mainly referring to end user WAN links (i.e. xDSL, Cable, FTTN/H) and that's a different story where /64 /56 /48 are still open to dispute :P On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Kody Vicknair <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > I’ve been doing some reading in preparation of IPv6 deployment and > figuring out how we will break up our /32. I think I’m on the right track > in thinking that each customer will be allocated a /48 to do whatever they > wish with it. > > I’ve read recent BCOP drafts that have been approved by the IETF: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554 > It looks like the smallest subnet that should ever be assigned is a /64 on > a particular link. > > > Some questions that come to mind with IPv6: > > In regards to Point to point links my thinking is this: > Assign a unique /64 to each point to point link with these addresses being > Globally routable. This seems to be what our IX providers do when assigning > us an IPv6 address. Am I correct in this train of thought? Why/Why not? > > In regards to core loopback addressing my initial thoughts are as follows: > Assign a single /64 encompassing all /128’s planned for loopback > addressing schemes. Should I be using Unique Local addressing for loopbacks > instead of going with a Globally routeable addressing scheme? Should each > interface IP configuration have a /64 or a /128? > > Also when talking about CPE mgmt addresses what do you think is a > practical way of going about assigning “Private” addressing schemes for cpe > management purposes. > > I’m sure some of these questions will be answered when I dive deeper into > how OSPFv6 works as well as BGP in regards to IPv6. > > Are any of you currently running IPv6 and wished you had done something > differently during the planning phase that may have prevented headaches > down the road? > > > > > Kody Vicknair > Network Engineer > > > [cid:[email protected]] <http://www.rtconline.com> > > Tel: 985.536.1214 > Fax: 985.536.0300 > Email: [email protected] > Web: www.rtconline.com > > Reserve Telecommunications > 100 RTC Dr > Reserve, LA 70084 > > > > > > Disclaimer: > The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for > the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, > distribute or be copied. Please notify Kody Vicknair immediately by e-mail > if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from > your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or > error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, > arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Kody Vicknair therefore does > not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this > message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. > >
