Not really. RFC6164 is meant to make sure routers support /127, but doesn’t mandate or say that you must use that.
This is another perspective: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-p2p-from-customer-prefix/ Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> en nombre de Octavio Alvarez <octalna...@alvarezp.org> Responder a: <octalna...@alvarezp.org> Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 18:25 Para: Mike <mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com>, <nanog@nanog.org> Asunto: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote: > On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P > link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6, > due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices, > you are told to "just use a /64' for your point to points. Isn't it a /127 nowadays, per RFC 6547 and RFC 6164? I guess the exception would be if a router does not support it. Best regards, Octavio. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
