IPv6 network policies

[sthaug at nethelp.no]

> > For IPv6 it seems to me we have two camps with different philosophies:
> > 
> > - The ping pong problem *should* be solved in IPv6, and it 
> > can be solved if the vendors do <X>.
> > 
> > - The ping pong problem doesn't need to be solved in IPv6 
> > since using a /127 works just fine. So let's bless the /127.
> 
> What about the pragmatic camp? Reserve a /64 for every PTP
> link and actually configure a /127 (or /126).

A /126 has the same ping pong problem as a /64 in my tests.

> This has the
> advantage of shorter and more memorable prefixes, i.e.
> 2001:DB8:1:77::/64 would be reserved and 2001:DB8:1:77::/127
> would be configured. 

Reserving a /64 for a customer link is fine. I see zero advantages
in doing so for backbone router-router links.

> If and when ping-ponging is fixed, anyone who has reserved a /64
> for each PTP connection can switch to configuring the whole
> /64 if it simplifies Operational Support Systems.

*If*. I'm afraid such simplification is not visible from my point
of view.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no