<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Enriched by Impactia Enterprise</TITLE> <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> <STYLE TYPE="text/css">  </STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY id="EFRAMER_MAIN_TABLE" BGCOLOR="white"><DIV><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="95%" height="80%" unselectable="on"> <TBODY> <TR height="20%"> <TD width="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"> <TABLE id=row1 border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" height="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD width="100%"> <P align=center><a href="http://impactia.bezeqint.co.il/redirect.ASP?id=777&data=CzKhoCXrD8jQJitd8tSkHt5ZcZSwGdvpM15XhlxVXYF%2BerrLMudEVXXGgj7%2FOnfO&url=https:%2F%2Fonline.bezeqint.net%2Fupagegateway%2F569%2F66%2FNDZydW5hZklrTjcwNXZJNjBZMzdiQmFjcVNOSFpBU3RjWDdqWm9LSjlCcGVac3VaYS9SUDN4R3NQQWFNR0hFUitqSDMwWVV2S0R4TwpkTVVySGZhdjIrd3R6NXh4LzJvR1J1ZmVsZzBpdFlWcHR3aXFQZmdDQVExd3c3YTJ2aDlm"><IMG border=0 src="cid:imp_bezeqint_Toft0"></A></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR> <TR height="80%"> <TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px" vAlign=top width="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"> <DIV dir=ltr id=emailtext UNSELECTABLE="on"> <BR> <P>The major problem I can assume happen when using only link local is the issue of replacing hardware.<BR> When you replace the cards on the routers it will require you to change the internal routing protocol (IS-IS \ OSPF). </P> <P> Another issue is debugging - when using trace route - all you will see is link-local addresses which make it very difficult to debug issues. </P> <P> We are configuring all our P2P links with /64 prefix on each link. This is not idle and very wasteful way, but it's the only solution to not interfere with RFCs and standards.<BR> Also - this is the only way to be multi vendors prepared, be ready for future to come with new IPv6 applications and products. </P> <P> MHO,<BR> Elad </P> <P> -----Original Message-----<BR>  <PRE> From: <A HREF="mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net">ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net</A> mailto:[<A HREF="mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net">ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net</A>] On Behalf Of Jasper Jans Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:08 AM To: <A HREF="mailto:ipv6-wg@ripe.net">ipv6-wg@ripe.net</A> Subject: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links </PRE>  </P> <P>Can anyone give me some real world experience with IPv6 numbering on P2P links in their network?</P> <P>I've seen the recommendations swing from '/64' to '/127 if your equipment can handle it' and even to 'do not assign anything at all just use link-local' and access your devices over the loopback which your IGP will distribute.</P> <P>The last option seems interesting to me from a IP assignment point of few. It safes me having to allocate a block for this part of the infrastructure. I'm just wondering if in the long run it will not make life harder.</P> <P>Jasper</P> <P><BR> Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op <A HREF="http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer">http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer</A></P> <P><BR> <BR></P> </DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <DIV style="WIDTH: 95%; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 12px" dir=ltr id=footer UNSELECTABLE="on"> <HR align=left SIZE=1 width="100%" noShade UNSELECTABLE="on"> <SPAN id=footer_1 UNSELECTABLE="on">This message was enriched by Impactia Technologies Ltd. <a id=footer_url1 href="http://www.impactia.com" UNSELECTABLE="on">www.impactia.com</A><BR></SPAN><SPAN id=footer_2 UNSELECTABLE="on">Please <a id=footer_url2 href="http://impactia.bezeqint.co.il/exclude.ASP?email=ipv6-wg@ripe.net&domain=bezeqint.co.il&id=777" UNSELECTABLE="on">do not enrich</A> emails sent to me.<BR></SPAN></DIV></DIV> </BODY> </HTML>