The major problem I can assume happen when using only link local is the issue of replacing hardware. When you replace the cards on the routers it will require you to change the internal routing protocol (IS-IS \ OSPF). Another issue is debugging - when using trace route - all you will see is link-local addresses which make it very difficult to debug issues. We are configuring all our P2P links with /64 prefix on each link. This is not idle and very wasteful way, but it's the only solution to not interfere with RFCs and standards. Also - this is the only way to be multi vendors prepared, be ready for future to come with new IPv6 applications and products. MHO, Elad -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jasper Jans Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:08 AM To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links Can anyone give me some real world experience with IPv6 numbering on P2P links in their network? I've seen the recommendations swing from '/64' to '/127 if your equipment can handle it' and even to 'do not assign anything at all just use link-local' and access your devices over the loopback which your IGP will distribute. The last option seems interesting to me from a IP assignment point of few. It safes me having to allocate a block for this part of the infrastructure. I'm just wondering if in the long run it will not make life harder. Jasper Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer
