[134493] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NIST IPv6 document
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Jan 6 09:50:15 2011
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 08:50:06 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <165A304D-D288-4290-ACB3-A63CD461CAF0@delong.com>
Cc: Nanog Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/5/2011 11:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Why shouldn't I use /64 for links if I want to? I can see why you can say you want /126s, and that's fine, as long as
> you are willing to deal with the fall-out, your network, your problem, but, why tell me that my RFC-compliant network
> is somehow wrong?
>
You can. My problem with that is primarily that using an ACL for the
predictable addresses gets messy. Filtering based on <prefix><multiple
assignments>::<1-2> isn't possible in most routers, and an acl to filter
every /64 used for a link address is one heck of a long list.
> SLAAC cannot function with longer than /64 because SLAAC depends on prefix + EUI-64 = address.
It depends on supporting it. EUI-64 address is not required for the
globally routed prefixes, and many servers static the token as ::0xxx.
Jack
