Post #4251038
2026-07-30 19:01 UTC
@Larvitz@burningboard.net
Thank you for sharing.
Being watching v6ops, I thought ptp links user /64 nowadays as BCOP
Do you have any thought on this?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-prefix-to-end-sites/
Replies (1)
-
@Larvitz@burningboard.net 2026-07-30 19:31
@goetz@ipv6.social The draft has the link prefix SHALL be a /64, with a /127 MAY for numbering the two interfaces, and that is what happens here: every link gets a /64 in the addressing plan, only the interface config is a /127. RFC 6164 is also still Standards Track. On this particular link it is moot anyway. WireGuard has no ND, so the neighbour-cache argument does not apply, and there is no SLAAC to grow into either.