nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPV6 planning
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 02:57:44 +0100
Den 6. mar. 2016 13.41 skrev "Karl Auer" <kauer () biplane com au>:
Dunno about "harsh", but RFC 2464, section 4 says that the prefix must be 64 bits. By (extremely strong) implication, a host must not use a prefix of any other length to perform SLAAC. I say "extremely strong" because the entire description of how an IPv6 Ethernet interface identifier is formed depends on it being composed of the prefix plus an EUI-64 identifier. Later RFCs firm up the requirement and apply it in other contexts.
But the most popular OS (Windows) completely ignores all of that and makes up an identifier not based on EUI-64. Everyone are happy anyway. The RFC should have let identifier selection as an implementation detail as the risk of collision is almost non existent given a sufficient random selection and we have duplicate address detection as a safeguard. Regards Baldur
Current thread:
- Re: IPV6 planning, (continued)
- Re: IPV6 planning Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Baldur Norddahl (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Hugo Slabbert (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Owen DeLong (Mar 07)
- Re: IPV6 planning Karl Auer (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Saku Ytti (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Karl Auer (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Saku Ytti (Mar 06)
- Re: IPV6 planning Tore Anderson (Mar 06)
- Re: IPV6 planning Karl Auer (Mar 06)
- Re: IPV6 planning Baldur Norddahl (Mar 06)
- Re: IPV6 planning Karl Auer (Mar 06)
- Re: IPV6 planning Owen DeLong (Mar 07)
- Re: IPV6 planning Alarig Le Lay (Mar 07)
- Re: IPV6 planning Owen DeLong (Mar 07)
- Re: IPV6 planning Bjørn Mork (Mar 08)
- Re: IPV6 planning Enno Rey (Mar 08)
- Re: IPV6 planning Saku Ytti (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Baldur Norddahl (Mar 07)