Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table sizeconsiderations

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:52:37AM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
> > What I have done on point to points and small subnets between routers 
> > is to simply make static neighbor entries.  That eliminates any 
> > neighbor table exhaustion causing the desired neighbors to become 
> > unreachable.  I also do the same with neighbors at public peering 
> > points.  Yes, that comes at the cost of having to reconfigure the 
> > entry if a MAC address changes, but that doesn't happen often.
>
> And this is better than just not trying to implement IPv6 stateless 
> auto-configuration on ptp links in the first place how exactly? Don't 
> get taken in by the people waving an RFC around without actually taking 
> the time to do a little critical thinking on their own first, /64s and 
> auto-configuration just don't belong on router ptp links. And btw only a 
> handful of routers are so poorly designed that they depend on not having 
> subnets longer than /64s when doing IPv6 lookups, and there are many 
> other good reasons why you should just not be using those boxes in the 
> first place. :)
I agree that SLAAC doesn't belong on PTP links, but, I fail to see why
having /64s on them is problematic if you take proper precautions.

Owen