IPv6 Address Planning

[Dan Reeder]

for what its worth, ipv6.net.au uses /126s for all its ptp links (tunnels 
between us and the user). Anything else is just pointless.

Dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James" <james at towardex.com>
To: <ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 Address Planning


> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:10:50PM -0600, Cody Lerum wrote:
>> The idea was to stay on a boundary for ease of subnetting, as well as
>> provide aggregation via /112's within /80's.
>>
>> /64's are possible, but will require burning a /48 for each Distribution
>> site, and I was trying to reserve /48 level assignments for downstream
>> organizations. While also only utilizing a /48 for my organization.
>>
>> Seemed to make sense to me, but this is my first run at a v6 addressing
>> plan.
>>
>> -C
>
> Honestly, /112 vs. /64 to me is just "do whatever is comfortable for you 
> and
> your team the most" issue.  At first one can do a design that will take 
> into
> consideration of aggregation in routing as much as possible, but at the 
> end of
> the day, in my experience, route aggregation at least in my internal iBGP 
> and
> IGP table do not seem to be causing too much scalability problems than
> expected, that just assigning /64s in a clean manner is simpler for us..
>
> One can also say, "why not use /126 if you are really going point to 
> point?"
> To me, personally (and this is just me by the way), a /126 makes more 
> sense
> than a /112 for PTP links.  But by the same token, given that "/64 is what 
> is
> considered a subnet in IPv6" tradition still remains popular, we still 
> remain
> to use /64s at this time.  I guess it does not hurt to reserve another /48
> for switchover to /126 if need be in the future ;)
>
> James
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sander Steffann [mailto:steffann at nederland.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:57 PM
>> To: Cody Lerum; ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
>> Subject: Re: IPv6 Address Planning
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > Within these /80's are individual /112's for PTP links.
>>
>> Why use a /112 for point-to-point links? The only reference I can find
>> is rfc3627, and that one does not really seem to advise to use a /112
>> except when using a /64 is not possible... So I am curious about why a
>> /112 is used.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sander.
>>
>
> -- 
> James Jun
> Infrastructure and Technology Services
> TowardEX Technologies
> Office +1-617-459-4051 x179 | Mobile +1-978-394-2867
> james at towardex.com | www.towardex.com
>
>