nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPV6 planning

From: Tore Anderson <tore () fud no>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 13:10:09 +0100

* Saku Ytti

Yes, SLAAC, 4862 clearly does not forbid it, and there is no
technical reason. But as you state, 2464 does not specify other
behaviour. Writing new draft which specifies behaviour for arbitrary
size wouldn't be a challenge, marketing it might be.


FYI: RFC 7421 is an in-depth discussion of the fixed 64-bit boundary.

Tore

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)
    - Re: IPV6 planning Enno Rey (Mar 08)
    - Re: IPV6 planning Baldur Norddahl (Mar 07)
  - RE: IPV6 planning frnkblk (Mar 06)

(Thread continues...)