[afripv6-discuss] IPv6 netmask on multi-access network segments

Philip Smith pfsinoz at gmail.com
Sun Feb 9 12:21:43 SAST 2014

Hi Warwick,

Was there anything wrong with /127 for ptp links as recommended in
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6164.txt - most recent deployments I've
seen use this (reserving the /64 for the subnet, but addressing it as a

Otherwise, as per Mark Tinka's answer. :-) I prefer /64 for general
segments, even though I may address them as something smaller. I've had
to renumber "upwards" too often over the years - live and learn.


Warwick Duncan said the following on 9/02/2014 00:53 :
> Hi
> Thanks all for the responses, it looks like the general idea of
> assigning a /64 per network segment has no opposition.  The configured
> netmask appears to be a matter of taste so I reckon I'll stick with the
> /120 I chose at the start, until something emerges as a best practice.
> Regards
> Warwick
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 09:14:13AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 08, 2014 08:54:54 AM Mukom Akong T. 
>> wrote:
>>> There used reported an issue where a router would start
>>> doing proceed switching if a non-/64 was configured.
>>> Have you encountered this recently?
>> Not on Cisco or Juniper routers.
>>> You use /112s for LANs? Does that work with SLAAC?
>> When I say LAN's I mean router, switch, server and service 
>> LAN's, e.g., DNS servers, mail servers, web servers, 
>> router/switch interfaces, e.t.c. For such cases, I manually 
>> configure device addresses because I don't want to leave it 
>> up to some random mechanism.
>> On user LAN's (like a corporate office network), I use SLAAC 
>> and DHCPv6, much like you'd use DHCPv4 for the same.
>> Mark. 
>> _______________________________________________
>> afripv6-discuss mailing list
>> afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss

More information about the afripv6-discuss mailing list