Ok, I though those could come from the same vpc range.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > From what I understand, SLAAC only works with /64s, larger breaks > various discovery protocols and is against RFC. Half of the address is > the prefix and the other half is (mostly) MAC. What you're describing > would work if we didn't want to do SLAAC, but would require an > alternate means of assignment. This sort of goes back to me wanting > to be able to assign multiple ranges to a network, say a "SLAAC /64" > and a "Manually assigned /64" by providing a field to tag the prefix > with a type. > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> guest networks, my initial preference would be for SLAAC, but I think >>> ultimately we'd want to be able to assign multiple ips to a guest. >>> With the 64 bits of the SLAAC space dedicated to all of the unique MAC >>> address possibilities, we can't really do that. We may want to >>> consider DHCP with static assignments from the beginning. >> >> >> Wouldn't an admin that requires this just have to assign bigger >> networks? /60 for the tiers and /56 for the vpc... Seems like this is >> not an argument against SLAAC in favor of DHCP. do tell me I am >> stoned, Daan
