[75649] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Stupid Ipv6 question...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Morris)
Fri Nov 19 14:08:00 2004
Reply-To: <swm@emanon.com>
From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
To: "'Kevin Loch'" <kloch@hotnic.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:04:19 -0500
In-Reply-To: <419E3E50.2000207@hotnic.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Does that mean if we rip them off that we may be prosecuted?
;)
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Kevin Loch
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 1:41 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Stupid Ipv6 question...
Leo Bicknell wrote:
> With the exception of auto-configuration, I have yet to see any
> IPv6 gear that cares about prefix length. Configuring a /1 to a
> /128 seems to work just fine. If anyone knows of gear imposing
> narrower limits on what can be configured I'd be facinated to know
> about them.
>
64 bit prefixes are the mattress tags of IPv6 interfaces.
--
Kevin Loch
