On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote: > On 11/29/11 09:30 , Owen DeLong wrote: >> I believe those have been obsoleted, but, /64 remains the best choice, IMHO. > > operational practice has moved on. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164 >
RFC 6164 does not say anything bad about using /64. Owen >> Owen >> >> On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:00 AM, McCall, Gabriel wrote: >> >>> Note that /127 is strongly discouraged in RFC5375 and RFC3627. 3627 >>> suggests using /112 for router links, or /126 at the very most. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Fred Baker [mailto:f...@cisco.com] >>> ... >>> I see no reason you couldn't use a /127 prefix if the link was point to >>> point. >>> ... >>> >> >> >>
