You should be using /126 or /127 for point to point links that touch
external networks unless you like extraneous NS messages and full neighbor
cache tables. :)
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 22:29, Krunal Shah wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > What subn
Hello,
The common recommendations for IPv6 point to point interface numbering are:
/64
/124
/126
/127
/64:
Advantages: conforms to IPv6 standard for a LAN link
Disadvantages: DOS threats against this design. Looping on a true ptp
circuit. Neighbor discovery issues.
/124:
Advantages: supports mu
Anyone know of a site with similar functionality? internetpulse.net
redirects to Dynatrace homepage now.
What subnet mask you are people using for point to point IPs between two
ASes? Specially with IPv6, We have a transit provider who wants us to use
/64 which does not make sense for this purpose. isn’t it recommended to use
/127 as per RFC 6164 like /30 and /31 are common for IPv4.
You can just ig
... it might help explaining what the site did.
- Josh
On Jun 28, 2017 10:51 AM, "Sean Hunter" wrote:
> Anyone know of a site with similar functionality? internetpulse.net
> redirects to Dynatrace homepage now.
>
It displayed real-time(-ish) latency and packet loss between major
networks. As companies were acquired, this became less useful, but it still
had it moments.
http://web.archive.org/web/20161003195519/http://internetpulse.com:80/
For the visually oriented, see the link above.
On Wed, Jun 28, 201
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Thomas Bellman wrote:
> On 2017-06-28 17:03, William Herrin wrote:
>
> > The common recommendations for IPv6 point to point interface numbering
> are:
> > /64
> > /124
> > /126
> > /127
>
> I thought the only allowed subnet prefix lengths for IPv6 were /64 and
> /
I think this is funny... I have (4) 10 gig internet connections and here's the
maskings for my v6 dual stacking...
/126 - telia
/64 - att
/112 - cogent
/127 - twc/charter/spectrum
- Aaron Gould
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Aaron Gould wrote:
> I think this is funny... I have (4) 10 gig internet connections and here's
> the maskings for my v6 dual stacking...
>
> /126 - telia
> /64 - att
> /112 - cogent
> /127 - twc/charter/spectrum
>
112... Could be worse I suppose. They could hav
Once upon a time, William Herrin said:
> 112... Could be worse I suppose. They could have picked 113.
A /112 means you can always use ::1 and ::2 for you endpoints. Of
course, you could allocate at /112 boundary and still use a /126 (or
even a /127 and use ::0 and ::1).
--
Chris Adams
Well, /112 is not a stupid option (and is far smarter than /64): it contains
the whole last nibble of an IPv6, that is x:x:x:x:x:x:x:1234.
You always put 1 or 2 at the end, and if needed you are still able to address
additional stuff would the point-to-point link become a LAN.
And you don't throw
On 6/28/17 18:10, Olivier Benghozi wrote:
> Well, /112 is not a stupid option (and is far smarter than /64): it contains
> the whole last nibble of an IPv6, that is x:x:x:x:x:x:x:1234.
> You always put 1 or 2 at the end, and if needed you are still able to address
> additional stuff would the poi
On 6/28/17 15:44, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Thomas Bellman wrote:
>
>> On 2017-06-28 17:03, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>>> The common recommendations for IPv6 point to point interface numbering
>> are:
>>> /64
>>> /124
>>> /126
>>> /127
>> I thought the only allowed su
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Olivier Benghozi <
olivier.bengh...@wifirst.fr> wrote:
> Well, /112 is not a stupid option (and is far smarter than /64): it
> contains the whole last nibble of an IPv6, that is x:x:x:x:x:x:x:1234.
> You always put 1 or 2 at the end, and if needed you are still abl
Thanks Bill, I thought with ipv6 it was a sin to subnet on bit boundaries and
not on nibble boundaries.
Heck, I’m gonna do whatever it takes to NOT subnet on bits with my v6
deployment. Hopefully with v6, gone are the days of binary subnetting math.
-Aaron Gould
From: William Herrin
15 matches
Mail list logo
