[138570] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Mar 10 14:35:21 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110310191226.GP68199@gerbil.cluepon.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:32:05 -0800
To: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:52:37AM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> What I have done on point to points and small subnets between routers
>> is to simply make static neighbor entries. That eliminates any
>> neighbor table exhaustion causing the desired neighbors to become
>> unreachable. I also do the same with neighbors at public peering
>> points. Yes, that comes at the cost of having to reconfigure the
>> entry if a MAC address changes, but that doesn't happen often.
>
> And this is better than just not trying to implement IPv6 stateless
> auto-configuration on ptp links in the first place how exactly? Don't
> get taken in by the people waving an RFC around without actually taking
> the time to do a little critical thinking on their own first, /64s and
> auto-configuration just don't belong on router ptp links. And btw only a
> handful of routers are so poorly designed that they depend on not having
> subnets longer than /64s when doing IPv6 lookups, and there are many
> other good reasons why you should just not be using those boxes in the
> first place. :)
>
I agree that SLAAC doesn't belong on PTP links, but, I fail to see why
having /64s on them is problematic if you take proper precautions.
Owen
