IPV6 Point-to-point addressing

Recently, there has been a discussion on what to use for point-to-point links under ipv6. Over the years I have seen providers use a wide variety of subnets across a point-to-point link.  Anything from a /64, to /122,124, and the 127. There are arguments for each. But let’s look at some RFCs.

This was the original RFC on point-to-point links advocating for a /127. It was moved to a “historical” status in 2012 after a /127 was found to be damaging.

This RFC explains some of the issues with using a /127. In a nutshell.

 Using /127 can be especially harmful on a point-to-point link when
   Subnet-router anycast address is implemented.

All of this brings us to some current RFC drafts and further reading

Some notes on point-to-point addressing
1. A subnet mask using something shorter than a /64 breaks some IPv6 functionality. A point-to-point link does not use the “broken” features anyway.

  1. The above 6164 RFC said vendors had to support /127s.  Many wrote code to comply with the RFC, which has now been obsoleted.
  2. A /64 could expose the link to security issues.

As of this writing, there are many approaches.  One approach is to set aside a /64 for the point-to-point but only use a /127 out of that /64.  You don’t re-use anything else out of that /64.  Other approaches involve using a  /126, /120 or a /112 are being accepted until this is all figured out.  So, why not a /122 or something? In short, it all has to do with the math of the subnet breakdown.

More IPV6 resources

This content is for Patreon subscribers of the j2 blog. Please consider becoming a Patreon subscriber for as little as $1 a month. This helps to provide higher quality content, more podcasts, and other goodies on this blog.
To view this content, you must be a member of Justin Wilson's Patreon at $0.01 or more
Already a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to access this content.