[131410] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Oct 23 20:24:16 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimKQyJCdD0D+qjM7OM323wdqwBXf3chV-EQdhUD@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 17:23:14 -0700
To: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <carlosm3011@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> Amen!
>=20
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> =
wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
>> a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That
>> is make it work like IPv4.
>>=20
>>=20
> I'd also love to turn off stateless autoconfig altogether and not be =
coerced
> to assign /64s to single LANs, which I am becoming convinced that it =
was a
> poor decision on the IETFs part.
>=20
Nah... The /64 thing is fine. If they hadn't done that, we likely would =
have only
a 64-bit address space total. 64-bit lans with 64-bit routing =
identifiers are
fine.
What would be nice would be if we changed the semantics a bit and made
it 16+48+64 where the first 16 of the dest+source could be re-assembled
into the destination ASN for the packet and the remaining 48 identified
a particular subnet globally with 64 for the host. Unfortunately, that =
ship
has probably sailed.
> Stateless autoconfig works very well, It would be just perfect if the
> network boundary was configurable (like say /64 if you really want it, =
or
> /80 - /96 for the rest of us)
>=20
There really is no need for anything smaller than /64. What, exactly, =
do you
think you gain from a smaller netmask?
Owen
