Generally here we're using /112's for P2P links.... ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
-----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Vegard Svanberg Sent: Friday, 12 February 2010 9:10 PM To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg] /127 for point to point links
Hello. We've stumbled across a problem with a router manufacturer, which won't implement support for /127 prefix lengths. Now, we do have peering/transit partners using /127 on their p2p links. The result is that we either cannot peer with them, or will have to get new routers.
RFC 3627 states that /127 is considered harmful, however I do feel this RFC confuse people since it doesn't propose a definite solution. It suggests a number of solutions and indicates using /64 is the right thing. I must say I strongly disagree on that conclusion. Wasting so much address space on point to point links just makes no sense to me.
So I'm not sure what to do here. I have to convince someone; either our partners or the router manufacturer. I have the impression that /127 is used widely out there.
-- Vegard Svanberg <vegard@svanberg.no> [*Takapa@IRC (EFnet)]