/127 between routers?

[Steve Bertrand]

Truman Boyes wrote:
> Juniper is definitely *not* recommending avoiding /64s. Do you have a pointer to where this information came from? I have performed extensive testing of IPv6 forwarding/routing and /64's work just fine.

Vendor recommending not using /64?

I envision a snowball in Hell.

I've just finalized on /64 for ptp, and I'm just a small network.

If x vendor states to avoid /64 for ANY situation, good luck to them.

Preferably, I don't want to be getting into the flame of what is best
for ptp.

What is best is what works for you. Personally, I find that /64 eui-64
works great for p-p, pe-p and pe-pe to keep traceroutes happy, and to
make configs almost copy/pasteable (and documentation easy to maintain).

This assumes that you shove your infrastructure links into IGP, along
with your /128 loopbacks.

fwiw, I use /64s on my PE to CE as well (no eui-64). In all honesty, I
don't think I've even ever bothered looking at what a diced up /64 looks
like :)

- one /64 for /128 loopbacks, within a dedicated /48 (per pop)
- one /64 per ptp, within a dedicated /48 (per pop, for all p, pe and ce)
- one /48 into /64s for servers etc (per pop)
- sparse allocation (er. assignment)

...waste? perhaps. Long-term thinking? yes. v4 thinking? no.

Steve