I have several queries in regards to ipv6
different documentation state that clients be given /64 with ISP's beign
given /48 from assigned global /32.
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
Is there any newbie guide for ipv6 subnetting?
Regards,
Shake
different documentation state that clients be given /64 with ISP's beign
given /48 from assigned global /32.
That should be that ISPs are given a global /32 from which they
assign /48s to clients. The client would assign a /64 to each LAN segment.
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood
RFC 3627 RFC 3627 - Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered Harmful
Is there any newbie guide for ipv6 subnetting?
--Michael Dillon
Thanks
> Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood
RFC 3627 RFC 3627 - Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered Harmful
RFC 3627 *and* the following Internet draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-01
The problem with ping-pong on point to point links is real.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
There was a recent thread here on this topic, see
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04500.html
Lorand Jakab
> > Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
>
> The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood
> RFC 3627 RFC 3627 - Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered HarmfulRFC 3627 *and* the following Internet draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-01
The problem with ping-pong on point to point links is real.
Only if you disable Neighbor Discovery.
> > > Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
> >
> > The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood
> > RFC 3627 RFC 3627 - Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered Harmful
>
> RFC 3627 *and* the following Internet draft:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-01
>
> The problem with ping-pong on point to point links is real.Only if you disable Neighbor Discovery.
You don't have to disable it. "Small, unknown" vendors like Cisco and
Juniper have IPv6 ND disabled on point to point links, and (at least
for Juniper) there is no option to turn it on.
The problem with ping-pong on point to point links is still very real.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
> > > > Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
> > >
> > > The best advice is to use a /64 unless you have read and understood
> > > RFC 3627 RFC 3627 - Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered Harmful
> >
> > RFC 3627 *and* the following Internet draft:
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-01
> >
> > The problem with ping-pong on point to point links is real.
>
> Only if you disable Neighbor Discovery.You don't have to disable it. "Small, unknown" vendors like Cisco and
Juniper
As you've already resorted to insulting me, this is my last response.
I don't think you're correct.
That's the equiv of a /31 in IPv4. Do you use /31's for p-t-p links in your IPv4 network(s)?
(Yes, I've used /31's before, but only to represent 2 /32's. And even that was silly.)
--Ricky
Can one subnet to include /127 for point to point connections?
That's the equiv of a /31 in IPv4. Do you use /31's for p-t-p links in
your IPv4 network(s)?
of course
randy
> You don't have to disable it. "Small, unknown" vendors like Cisco and
> JuniperI don't think you're correct.
> have IPv6 ND disabled on point to point links, and (at least
> for Juniper) there is no option to turn it on.
I encourage people to verify this for themselves.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Ricky Beam wrote (on Apr 06):
Yes, like many others (there was a thread on this on NANOG towards the end of
January, no? Yes; started 1/22/2010 by Seth Mattinen; I don't have a link to
an archive entry, because I have it in my own archives here).
It's amazing how many 'subnetting reference guides' I've found out there that
go as far as stating that /31's aren't even legal.... they'd really fall over
if they saw how I was using a /27's broadcast address as one end of a /31 in
one particular instance.... 
RFC 3021, man, RFC 3021.