Re: IPv6 Loopback/Point-to-Point address allocation

2017-09-09 Thread Masood Ahmad Shah
I don't see any point of using larger Network space for point to point links or on loopback addresses. To me the best is that 127-Bit prefixes on IPv6 point-to-point links and /128 on Loopback serves the purpose, and offers us a lot of advantages such as it prevents us from neighbor discovery exhau

Hurricane Irma: U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico

2017-09-09 Thread Sean Donelan
5 fatalities in U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico FCC doesn't have reliable reporting on Wireline and Cable service providers in either USVI or Puerto Rico. The assumption is large numbers of customers are without cable or wireline service. 870,000 customers (55% of the island) without po

Re: IPv6 Loopback/Point-to-Point address allocation

2017-09-09 Thread Baldur Norddahl
You want to configure point to point interfaces as /127 or /126 even if you allocate a full /64 for the link. This prevents an NDP exhaustion attack with no downside. Loopback interfaces should be configured as /128. How you allocate these do not matter. Den 9. sep. 2017 18.08 skrev "Kody Vickna

RE: IPv6 Loopback/Point-to-Point address allocation

2017-09-09 Thread Kody Vicknair
Apologies, Wrong link: https://www.sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v7.pdf Kody Vicknair Network Engineer [cid:image764c5e.JPG@bb882327.44b4b1d7] Tel:985.536.1214 Fax:985.536.0300 Email: kvickn...@reservetele.com Web:www.rtconline.com

IPv6 Loopback/Point-to-Point address allocation

2017-09-09 Thread Kody Vicknair
All, I’ve been doing some reading in preparation of IPv6 deployment and figuring out how we will break up our /32. I think I’m on the right track in thinking that each customer will be allocated a /48 to do whatever they wish with it. I’ve read recent BCOP drafts that have been approved by the