[6bone] semi-newbie Q on IPv6 address planning

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 06:47:22PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> > Gert Doering wrote:
> > Whether the standard says it's illegal or not, /127s works
> > fine (yes, even /127).  Why create ambiguities by assigning
> > more than 2 IPs to something that needs exactly 2?
> 
> Read draft-savola-ipv6-127-prefixlen-04.txt
> 
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-savola-ipv6-127-prefixlen-0
> 4.txt

Done.

I don't agree with many of the conclusions - why would it be "the best"
solution to assign /64s to ptp links?  There is nothing "good" about /64s.

If /127s are not used, what is the benefit of a /112?  Who needs 64k 
addresses on a ptp link?

The general issue of anycast addresses on ptp links doesn't sound very
useful either, but this seems to be an unavoidable issue - so thanks 
for pointing it out, we'll consider moving to /126s.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  46284  (46191)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299