[75660] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Stupid Ipv6 question...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James)
Fri Nov 19 16:52:00 2004
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:51:34 -0500
From: James <haesu@towardex.com>
To: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20041119172510.GA15601@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 12:25:10PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> FWIW, my test networks have always been configured with /126's, and
> have never had an issue.
>
> 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.
I am seeing the same here. We mostly use /64 as p2p links in 30071, and
also have /127's and /126's and even some /112's with legacy peers.
No problems exhibited in all cases.
But that still doesn't change the fact that /64 is recommended minimum
subnet size. :) Then again IPv6 gives us lot of *subnets* before we even
talk about gazillion amount of hosts ;)
-J
--
James Jun TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
Technical Lead Boston IPv4/IPv6 Web Hosting, Colocation and
james@towardex.com Network design/consulting & configuration services
cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net
