nanog mailing list archives
RE: Stupid Ipv6 question...
From: "Scott Morris" <swm () emanon com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:04:19 -0500
Does that mean if we rip them off that we may be prosecuted? ;) Scott -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of Kevin Loch Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 1:41 PM To: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Leo Bicknell wrote:
With the exception of auto-configuration, I have yet to see any IPv6 gear that cares about prefix length. Configuring a /1 to a /128 seems to work just fine. If anyone knows of gear imposing narrower limits on what can be configured I'd be facinated to know about them.
64 bit prefixes are the mattress tags of IPv6 interfaces. -- Kevin Loch
Current thread:
- Stupid Ipv6 question... Dan Mahoney, System Admin (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Stephane Bortzmeyer (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Dan Mahoney, System Admin (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Stephen Sprunk (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Lars Erik Gullerud (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Leo Bicknell (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Kevin Loch (Nov 19)
- RE: Stupid Ipv6 question... Scott Morris (Nov 19)
- Re: [nanog] RE: Stupid Ipv6 question... Dan Mahoney, System Admin (Nov 19)
- RE: [nanog] RE: Stupid Ipv6 question... Scott Morris (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Lars Erik Gullerud (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Stephane Bortzmeyer (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... James (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Crist Clark (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Kevin Oberman (Nov 20)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 bmanning (Nov 20)
- RE: Stupid Ipv6 Scott Morris (Nov 20)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Joe Abley (Nov 21)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Kevin Oberman (Nov 22)