Is anyone staying away from certain address ranges in /127s? I have seen where they say not to use the all zeros or end addresses from 1 - 127. Thoughts on this?
-Mike -----Original Message----- From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org] Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:36 AM To: Richard A Steenbergen Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table sizeconsiderations On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:52:37AM -0800, George Bonser wrote: >> >> What I have done on point to points and small subnets between routers >> is to simply make static neighbor entries. That eliminates any >> neighbor table exhaustion causing the desired neighbors to become >> unreachable. I also do the same with neighbors at public peering >> points. Yes, that comes at the cost of having to reconfigure the >> entry if a MAC address changes, but that doesn't happen often. > > And this is better than just not trying to implement IPv6 stateless > auto-configuration on ptp links in the first place how exactly? Don't > get taken in by the people waving an RFC around without actually taking > the time to do a little critical thinking on their own first, /64s and > auto-configuration just don't belong on router ptp links. And btw only a > handful of routers are so poorly designed that they depend on not having > subnets longer than /64s when doing IPv6 lookups, and there are many > other good reasons why you should just not be using those boxes in the > first place. :) +1 Auto-config has its place, and I don't think core infrastructure is one of them. In our addressing plan, I've allocated /64s for each point-to-point link, but will use /127s in practice. That seemed like the best compromise between throwing /64s at everything and being prepared for the off-chance that something absolutely requires a /64. jms
