Inline: GV> From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Elad Hefetz Sent: 26 May 2011 10:19 To: Jasper Jans; ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links <http://impactia.bezeqint.co.il/redirect.ASP?id=777&data=CzKhoCXrD8jQJit d8tSkHt5ZcZSwGdvpM15XhlxVXYF%2BerrLMudEVXXGgj7%2FOnfO&url=https:%2F%2Fon line.bezeqint.net%2Fupagegateway%2F569%2F66%2FNDZydW5hZklrTjcwNXZJNjBZMz diQmFjcVNOSFpBU3RjWDdqWm9LSjlCcGVac3VaYS9SUDN4R3NQQWFNR0hFUitqSDMwWVV2S0 R4TwpkTVVySGZhdjIrd3R6NXh4LzJvR1J1ZmVsZzBpdFlWcHR3aXFQZmdDQVExd3c3YTJ2aD lm> 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). GV> this is incorrect, not? ISIS runs over CLNS and OSPFv3 just detects its neighbor by sending hello's. If you replace HW, then there is no impact on these protocols at all. Another issue is debugging - when using trace route - all you will see is link-local addresses which make it very difficult to debug issues. GV> depending on the vendor used it may actually give you a loopback address... because, how can a LL be the source of a ICMP unreachable reply? (the return packet would not be able to pass the link actually) 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. GV> /127 is now ok also, and doesn't suffer from the well known ping-pong problem. 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 G/ -----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 ________________________________ This message was enriched by Impactia Technologies Ltd. www.impactia.com Please do not enrich <http://impactia.bezeqint.co.il/exclude.ASP?email=ipv6-wg@ripe.net&domai n=bezeqint.co.il&id=777> emails sent to me.