[135387] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Douglas Otis)
Mon Jan 24 18:43:15 2011
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:42:28 -0800
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20110124190435.GB11522@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/24/11 11:04 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 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,
It seems efforts related to IP address specific policies are likely
doomed by the sheer size of the address space, and to be pedantic, ARP
has been replaced with multicast neighbor discovery which dramatically
reduces the overall traffic involved. Secondly, doesn't Secure Neighbor
Discovery implemented at layer 2 fully mitigate these issues? I too
would be interested in hearing from Radia and Fred.
-Doug
