[6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?

[Dan Reeder]

Having read that rfc, howcome you suggest /112 or /64 rather than a /126 to
get around the anycast problem? The section 4.3 clearly states that the /126
will work fine - what is the point of suggesting a shorter prefix? To me
thats just wasteful addressing.

Also, could you please clarify when a linux system would be deemed to be a
router rather than a host? Or perhaps I misinterpreted the rfc and it only
applies to routers such as ciscos?
We use /127s for the "point to point" tunnels and as far as I'm aware i've
not seen any problems (other than redhat 9 always applying PREFIX::0/128 in
the routing table to its loopback for some reason)

cheers
Dan Reeder
tb.ipv6.net.au

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: <ktso@cuhk.edu.hk>
Cc: <6bone@ISI.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?


> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 ipv6@cuhk.edu.hk wrote:
> > I am sorry that I am a little bit outdated.  I notice that min
allocation
> > of address space is /48 instead of /64 in the past for IXes.  I have
> > also read some old messages that /64 is used because of automatic
> > configuration.  But then how about P2P?  Is there a practice to use a
> > /64 or /127 for P2P link?  Will it break something if I use prefix
> > longer than /64?  Thanks for your advice.
>
> As for P2P links (between routers, I take you mean)..
>
> Don't use /127, but anything between that and /64 is operationally fine.
> Architecturally one should use /64.  We use /112's ourselves.
>
> Read RFC 3627 for more.
>
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6bone mailing list
> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
>