/127 between routers?

[Roger Jorgensen]

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jim Burwell wrote:
<snip
> On 1/5/2010 08:34, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
<snip>
> > Some year back I stopped using /127 when Linux refused to route my
> > traffic. Had to add a static /128 for part of the /127 to get traffic
> > flowing again. Later I changed to /126 and the problem disapeared. Wonder
> > if I even had the same issue on some cisco routers to.
> >
> > Should be mention that it was all IPv6 in IPv4 tunnels so could be related
> > to that to...
<snip>
> 
> Having said that, the existence of that RFC and draft worries me about
> using /126s at all, and one wonders if just sticking with /64s as seems
> to be extolled as the best practice is the "right thing".  Others have
> also made good points about /64 for convenience and consistancy in IPv6
> addressing plans.  If it's easy to get say, an entire separate /48 to
> use for /64 tunnel end points, then there's not much point in using
> /126s, even if the "wastefulness" bugs me a bit.  :)

If you ask me... anything else than 127 and 126 is a good thing.
/128, /112 or /64 is really all the same as long as the use is thought 
through.



-- 

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              | - ROJO9-RIPE  - RJ85P-NORID
roger at jorgensen.no           | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------