Re: NIST IPv6 document

[Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>]

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