nanog mailing list archives
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer () bfk de>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:03:36 +0000
* Ray Soucy:
Every time I see this question it' usually related to a fundamental misunderstanding of IPv6 and the attempt to apply v4 logic to v6.
True, you have to ignore more than a decade of IPv4 protocol development and resort to things like pre-VLSM networking.
That said. Any size prefix will likely work and is even permitted by the RFC.
Could you quote chapter and verse, please? RFC 4291 section 2.5.4 says this: All Global Unicast addresses other than those that start with binary 000 have a 64-bit interface ID field (i.e., n + m = 64), formatted as described in Section 2.5.1. -- Florian Weimer <fweimer () bfk de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Current thread:
- Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market, (continued)
- Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market Paul Timmins (Feb 08)
- Re: Telco style routing, was What's really needed is a routing slot market John Levine (Feb 08)
- RE: Telco style routing, was What's really needed is a routing slot market Nathan Eisenberg (Feb 08)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- RE: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Nathan Eisenberg (Feb 05)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN bmanning (Feb 05)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN sthaug (Feb 03)
