[111938] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Tue Feb 17 13:32:33 2009
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:32:26 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0902171816450.90069@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
Cc: Carl Rosevear <Carl.Rosevear@demandmedia.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> If you are interested about the addressing architecture only, have a
> look at RFC 4291: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291
>
> If you want to have some allocation guidelines from experiences, have a
> look at these slides:
> http://www.6deploy.org/tutorials/030-6deploy_ipv6_addressing_v0_2.pdf
> http://www.6deploy.org/tutorials/031-IPv6_addr_case_RENATER_Hungarnet_v0_1.pdf
>
> http://www.6deploy.org/tutorials/131_Campus_IPv6_deployment_consideration_v0_3.pdf
>
Just to add to this, beware the vendor documentation. In particular, I
noticed many "examples" posted by vendors that used all kinds of
notations. Cisco, for example, formally uses /64 in current
documentation but still has a ton of old docs which use /112 or other
similar boundaries. Since searches don't always turn up "most current",
you may find obsolete documentation.
-Jack
