> In the BCOP, this is noted so that those who suboptimally address their p-t-p > links with /64s can be consistently suboptimal by doing the same with their > loopbacks,
I am trying to understand what is sub-optimal about doing so...Waste of Ipv6 space ? or some other technical reason ? (is a /64 address are a 'sinkhole' the only reason ? ) Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roland Dobbins" <rdobb...@arbor.net> > To: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 2:00:21 AM > Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback > Address > > > On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net> wrote: > > > For Router Loopback Address .... what is wisdom in allocating a /64 vs /128 > > ? > > In the BCOP, this is noted so that those who suboptimally address their p-t-p > links with /64s can be consistently suboptimal by doing the same with their > loopbacks, so that *all* their interfaces are sinkholes. > > But the BCOP also talks about /128s. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> > > Equo ne credite, Teucri. > > -- Laocoön > >
