nanog mailing list archives
Re: NIST IPv6 document
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 08:50:06 -0600
On 1/5/2011 11:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Why shouldn't I use /64 for links if I want to? I can see why you can say you want /126s, and that's fine, as long as you are willing to deal with the fall-out, your network, your problem, but, why tell me that my RFC-compliant network is somehow wrong?
You can. My problem with that is primarily that using an ACL for the predictable addresses gets messy. Filtering based on <prefix><multiple assignments>::<1-2> isn't possible in most routers, and an acl to filter every /64 used for a link address is one heck of a long list.
SLAAC cannot function with longer than /64 because SLAAC depends on prefix + EUI-64 = address.
It depends on supporting it. EUI-64 address is not required for the globally routed prefixes, and many servers static the token as ::0xxx.
Jack
Current thread:
- NIST IPv6 document Kevin Oberman (Jan 04)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Jeff Wheeler (Jan 04)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Mohacsi Janos (Jan 05)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Jeff Wheeler (Jan 05)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Dobbins, Roland (Jan 05)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Jack Bates (Jan 05)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Owen DeLong (Jan 05)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Jack Bates (Jan 06)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Mohacsi Janos (Jan 05)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Owen DeLong (Jan 05)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Robert E. Seastrom (Jan 06)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Jeff Wheeler (Jan 06)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Owen DeLong (Jan 06)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Jeff Wheeler (Jan 06)
- Message not available
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Jeff Wheeler (Jan 06)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Jeff Wheeler (Jan 04)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Mark Smith (Jan 07)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Dobbins, Roland (Jan 07)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Mark Smith (Jan 07)
- Re: NIST IPv6 document Owen DeLong (Jan 07)