[188039] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPV6 planning
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saku Ytti)
Sat Mar 5 18:57:57 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1457218790.2036.33.camel@biplane.com.au>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 01:57:54 +0200
From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 6 March 2016 at 00:59, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
> Other thing with SLAAC is that you get 64-bit subnets and only 64-bit
> subnets. This should not be any kind of problem with a flat /48, but if
> you will have more complicated subnetting you should keep an eye on it.
Technically speaking there is no reason not to support SLAAC on
arbitrary size networks. I believe Cisco happily will autogenerate
address for smaller subnets.
--
++ytti
