[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[6bone] semi-newbie Q on IPv6 address planning
- Subject: [6bone] semi-newbie Q on IPv6 address planning
- From: [email protected] (Antonio Querubin)
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 07:06:47 -1000 (HST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:00:10 -0700
> From: "Michel Py" <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]ramento.ca.us>
> | > And what is a /126 allocation for a point-to-point link?
> | Not good, it violates RFC2373.
> which is totally harmless.
> | You should use a /64 for point-to-point links.
> That is an option.
> | It is typical to allocate a /48 for your ptp links.
> If you have a /32 (or similar), that's nice (and I appreciate that was the
> context of the question). But most users will have just one /48, allocating
> that to p2p links would be a bit drastic...
> Personally, I use /112's for p2p links. Works just fine. Scales wonderfully.
For us, assigning on nibble boundaries for multiple-subnet sites scales
much better too than the one-size-fits-all /48.