IPv6 Address Planning

[Merike Kaeo]

I was just in same situation...trying to figure out what addressing 
plan makes sense for an IPv6 ISP scenario.

Although there *are* folks who are using /127 or /126 for pt-pt links 
and rfc3627 does refer to using a /112 if
a /64 is not available, many folks have expressed strong opinions to 
'respect the /64 boundary' :)  That has been
our decision to use as well. [after a bunch of back-and-forth and 
trying to squelch the feeling of being wasteful].

Quite frankly I was a bit surprised at how all over the map the pt-pt 
addressing schemes were since I was hoping to
use something that was universally thought of as best practice.   And 
Cody beat me to asking this list to get more opinions :)

- merike


On Aug 9, 2005, at 12:11 PM, Roger Jorgensen wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Cody Lerum wrote:
>>
>> Here is our current plan, but we are looking for suggestions from 
>> people
>> who have been down this road before. The plan is to break out a /48 
>> for
>> our organization. Then break out the first /64 for loopbacks, and the
>> next /64 for point-to-point connections. The PTP /64 then breaks out
>> further into 1 /80 for core links, and 1 /80 for each of our
>> distribution sites. Within these /80's are individual /112's for PTP
>> links. What this will allow us to do is aggregate each sites PTP
>> connections into /80's within our IGP.
>
> Would strongly suggest you forget the idea of using /80 and /112, don't
> use anything smaller than /64. You might not see the need for it now 
> but
> experience have thought me to respect the /64 boundary.
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> ------------------------------
> Roger Jorgensen              |
> rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no        | - IPv6 is The Key!
> http://www.jorgensen.no      | roger at jorgensen.no
> -------------------------------------------------------
>