[111375] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Seth Mattinen)
Wed Feb 4 21:05:42 2009
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:00:38 -0800
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>
To: TJ <trejrco@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <00f501c98733$e9f291c0$bdd7b540$@com>
Cc: 'NANOG list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
TJ wrote:
>> Some devices will refuse to work if you subnet smaller than a /64. (Yes, poorly designed, etc.)
>
> Actually, no - not poorly designed. The spec says it must be a /64 (excluding those starting with 000 binary) so that is what devices (rightfully) expect. Ref: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.1
>
I was just trying to head off the flood of "poorly designed" comments
last time I said such a thing on a different list. ;)
I find /64 convenient because it ends on a nice boundary out of my /48
and for my purposes it's more than enough space. The only annoyance I've
come across was my Cisco devices will only accept an EUI-64 address as a
host address in an ACL. Not a big deal though.
~Seth
