[146984] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jimmy Hess)
Wed Nov 30 00:29:46 2011
In-Reply-To: <36213AC7-884E-4673-BBF0-565958BAAB45@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:28:36 -0600
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>, "McCall,
Gabriel" <Gabriel.McCall@thyssenkrupp.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>> On 11/29/11 09:30 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> I believe those have been obsoleted, but, /64 remains the best choice, IMHO.
>> operational practice has moved on.
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164
> RFC 6164 does not say anything bad about using /64.
> Owen
RFC 6164 does not define operational practice or a recommended way of
designing your network or configuring your router(s).
All RFC 6164 says is essentially that some networks do want to use
longer than
64-bit prefixes and there are some valid reasons, explains what
motivates some operators to do so,
and adds recommendations that routers must allow assignment of /127
prefixes on P-t-P
inter-router links and disable subnet-router anycast when in use.
In other words... if you are implementing an IPv6 router, RFC 6164
will assist you by giving
you technical recommendations that you implement the capability for
/127 prefixes on your
router, with motiviations listed that will help you decide whether
to include support for
/127 inter-router links or not.
--
-JH
