nanog mailing list archives
Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
From: Glen Kent <glen.kent () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:18:40 +0530
SLAAC only works with /64 - yes - but only if it runs on Ethernet-like Interface ID's of 64bit length (RFC2464).
Ok, the last 64 bits of the 128 bit address identifies an Interface ID which is uniquely derived from the 48bit MAC address (which exists only in ethernet).
SLAAC could work ok with /65 on non-Ethernet media, like a point-to-point link whose Interface ID's length be negotiated during the setup phase.
If we can do this for a p2p link, then why cant the same be done for an ethernet link? Glen
Other non-64 Interface IDs could be constructed for 802.15.4 links, for example a 16bit MAC address could be converted into a 32bit Interface ID. SLAAC would thus use a /96 prefix in the RA and a 32bit IID. IP-over-USB misses an Interface ID altogether, so one is free to define its length. AlexRegards, K.
Current thread:
- subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 23)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 23)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Karl Auer (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Alexandru Petrescu (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Jonathan Lassoff (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 23)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Sven Olaf Kamphuis (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 26)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Joel Maslak (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Chuck Anderson (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 25)