Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

 well... you are correct - he did say shorter.  me - i'd hollar for my good 
friends Fred and Radia (helped w/ the old vitalink mess) on the best way to
manage an arp storm and/or cam table of  a /64 of MAC addresses. :)  It was
hard enough to manage a "lan"/single broadcast domain that was global in scope
and had 300,000 devices on it.

"route when you can, bridge when you must"

--bill


On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:58:25AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Bill... Last I looked, /120 was longer than /64, not shorter.
>
> What I'm not understanding would be why anyone would want to use
> something shorter than /64 on a LAN.
>
> Owen
>
> On Jan 24, 2011, at 5:28 AM, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:
>
> > as a test case, i built a small home network out of  /120. works just fine.
> > my home network has been native IPv6 for about 5 years now, using a /96 and IVI.
> >
> > some thoughts.  disable RD/RA/ND.
> >             none of the DHCPv6 code works like DHCP, so I re-wrote
> >                     client and server code so that it does.
> >             static address assignment is a good thing for services like DNS/HTTP
> >             secure dynmaic update is your friend
> >
> > summary - its not easy, vendors don't want to help.  but it can be done.
> >
> > --bill
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:59:59AM -0200, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> > > The subject says it all... anyone with experience with a setup like this ?
> > >
> > > I am particularly wondering about possible NDP breakage.
> > >
> > > cheers!
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > --
> > > =========================
> > > Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo
> > > http://www.labs.lacnic.net
> > > =========================