nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPV6 planning

From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 01:57:54 +0200

On 6 March 2016 at 00:59, Karl Auer <kauer () biplane com au> wrote:

Other thing with SLAAC is that you get 64-bit subnets and only 64-bit
subnets. This should not be any kind of problem with a flat /48, but if
you will have more complicated subnetting you should keep an eye on it.


Technically speaking there is no reason not to support SLAAC on
arbitrary size networks. I believe Cisco happily will autogenerate
address for smaller subnets.

-- 
  ++ytti

Current thread:

IPV6 planning Laurent Dumont (Mar 05)
- Re: IPV6 planning Mark Tinka (Mar 05)
  - Re: IPV6 planning Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 05)
    - Re: IPV6 planning Baldur Norddahl (Mar 05)
    - Re: IPV6 planning Hugo Slabbert (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)

(Thread continues...)