On 9/19/11 21:50 , Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2011-09-20 15:58, Randy Bush wrote: >>>> I think that RFC 5952 (an update on RFC 4291) provides the guidance >>>> you describe in section 4.2.3. >>> I see that it does (and the errata on 4291 do not). Thanks. >>> >>> A reasonable prefix will end with at least 64 zeros, so :: will >>> always be the last element according to RFC 5952. (Unless someone >>> uses prefixes longer than /64, in which case I for one don't care.) >> >> a shame. once upon a time, the academics in the ietf did care about >> operational networks. > > I'm not sure that I've yet seen a case where >64 is operationally > justified, except for the /126 or whatever discussion we had a while > back for pt2pt links - where I don't think the problem that started > this thread would apply.
(only slightly trolling) For multi-router subnets where I'm still trying to head the potential for ND related DDOS while allowing for a reasonable number (or perhaps the minimum necessary) of devices I'm likely to use a prefix longer than a /64 but shorter than a /126, because I'm queer on nibble boundaries it might be a /112 but it might just as easily be a /124. joel > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
