[147029] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Blackman)
Wed Nov 30 16:19:44 2011
From: Mark Blackman <mark@exonetric.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnOd3gqob=ZD9qGJVmoAAGef8A-WEAyAA3uMSQU9y17sNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:18:38 +0000
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 30 Nov 2011, at 21:10, Ray Soucy wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> I do believe that there is no benefit to longer prefixes than /64.
>> Nobody has provided any convincing evidence to the contrary.
>>=20
>> There are better ways to mitigate ND than longer prefixes.
>=20
> Agree to disagree, I guess.
To be honest, I can't work out the point of preferring a /64 in the =
first place if
you're not using SLAAC and I'm not sure why SLAAC wanted more than 48
bits.
If you use broad ACLs to lock down to a /126 or /112 equivalent, why =
bother with
the /64 in the first place?
However, I'm new to the IPv6 business, so I'm sure I'll work it out =
eventually.
- Mark
