RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

>> Irina Dayal wrote: > 1) Is it safe to assume that all IPv6 prefixes will be between >> 16 and 64 bits long? > Keith Moore wrote: > no. because nothing requires a site to use the lower 64 bits > as an interface ID - a site is free to subnet that space if > it wishes. I have to disagree with K

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> I have to disagree with Keith here. If a site wants to subnet, > they get a /48 and use the 16 SLA bits to subnet, that is what > they have been designed for. depends on what you mean by 'site', I suppose. Even if RFC 3177 is followed, I would not want the network to presume that a /64 net (s

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> Irina Dayal wrote: > 1) Is it safe to assume that all IPv6 prefixes will be between 16 and 64 > bits long? The current allocation of IPv6 prefixes seems to require > Aggregatable Global Unicast Addresses, which restricts the prefixes to > this range. It's not safe (even if it might be true tod

IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

I am new here so please excuse the trivial questions. I did trawl the archives but could not find a definitive answer. 1) Is it safe to assume that all IPv6 prefixes will be between 16 and 64 bits long? The current allocation of IPv6 prefixes seems to require Aggregatable Global Unicast Addre

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

In your previous mail you wrote: 1) Is it safe to assume that all IPv6 prefixes will be between 16 and 64 bits long? The current allocation of IPv6 prefixes seems to require Aggregatable Global Unicast Addresses, which restricts the prefixes to this range. => if this seems to be sa

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> 1) Is it safe to assume that all IPv6 prefixes will be between 16 and 64 bits > long? no. because nothing requires a site to use the lower 64 bits as an interface ID - a site is free to subnet that space if it wishes. IETF I

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> Allocations on non-nibble boundaries are possible of course.. it could > just mean about 8 different almost identical delegations in the worst > case. Right. Which should trivially easy to automate for any organization big enough to need to worry about it. > Or are you referring to "Class-les

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Date:Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:49:59 -0800 From:Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: | Actually, there *is* something that requires a site to use the lower 64 | bits as an interface ID: the IPv6 address architecture spec.

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> Jochen Kaiser wrote: > the vlan is not the problem since you can have a default vlan > which is member on all switch ports. it's pre configured. Ah. Multiple subnets on a single VLAN. Maybe you can explain me the purpose of the multiple subnets, then. --

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 10:18:09AM -0800, Michel Py wrote: [...] > > One question: Who is going to configure the vlans and the > access-lists between them? Joe customer? > the vlan is not the problem since you can have a default vlan which is member on all switch ports. it's pre configured. b

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 08:45:30PM +0100, Peter Bieringer wrote: > > > --On Sunday, February 03, 2002 12:18:28 PM +0100 Brian E Carpenter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Count the light bulbs and electric motors in your house. I don't > > want to exclude *anything* for the future. Luxury car

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 01:10:40AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > Allocations on non-nibble boundaries are possible of course.. it could > just mean about 8 different almost identical delegations in the worst > case. > > Or are you referring to "Class-less reverse delegation" (RFC2317)? I'm > not

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 09:27:57AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Steve Deering wrote: > > > > At 2:07 PM +0100 1/24/02, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > >Nevertheless, it is not architecturally forbidden to subnet at /124 > > >if you really want to... > > > > Actually, it is, at least for unicas

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Steve Deering wrote: > At 3:54 PM -0500 2/8/02, Keith Moore wrote: > > > >So if an ISP came along and said "we have a million customers signed up, > > > >we want to give them static /48 prefixes to their current home xDSL lines, > > > >and thus we'd like a /23", that should be

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

At 3:54 PM -0500 2/8/02, Keith Moore wrote: > > >So if an ISP came along and said "we have a million customers signed up, > > >we want to give them static /48 prefixes to their current home xDSL lines, > > >and thus we'd like a /23", that should be approved? (2^25^0.8 ~= 1M) > > > > Yes, absolute

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

At 1:39 PM -0500 2/1/02, Keith Moore wrote: >To me it seems entirely plausible that networks consisting of large >numbers of point-to-point links, assembled into trees, will be all the >rage in a few years. Even Ethernet is becoming more a point-to-point >technology rather than a bus technolog

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

At 5:02 PM +0100 2/1/02, Tomas Lund wrote: >On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Robert Elz wrote: > > > | 3. Is it ok to use longer than a /64 for links ? > > > > That is, the suggestion isn't to pressure people to use /126 or something > > (as your #2 would do), nor to tell people that it isn't OK to use a /6

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> >So if an ISP came along and said "we have a million customers signed up, > >we want to give them static /48 prefixes to their current home xDSL lines, > >and thus we'd like a /23", that should be approved? (2^25^0.8 ~= 1M) > > Yes, absolutely, assuming they can present some evidence that they

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

At 11:02 AM -0500 1/23/02, Keith Moore wrote: > > 1) Is it safe to assume that all IPv6 prefixes will be between 16 and 64 bits > > long? > >no. because nothing requires a site to use the lower 64 bits as an >interface ID - a site is free to subnet that space if it wishes. Actually, there *is*

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

At 2:07 PM +0100 1/24/02, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >Nevertheless, it is not architecturally forbidden to subnet at /124 >if you really want to... Actually, it is, at least for unicast addresses that do not start with binary 000; see earlier message from me. Steve ---

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

At 8:22 AM + 2/8/02, Tim Chown wrote: >So if an ISP came along and said "we have a million customers signed up, >we want to give them static /48 prefixes to their current home xDSL lines, >and thus we'd like a /23", that should be approved? (2^25^0.8 ~= 1M) Yes, absolutely, assuming they can

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

At 6:03 PM + 2/1/02, Tim Chown wrote: >If that's static /48's, the /29 boundary will need revision...(and >certainly a /35 would be useless to any medium ISP). Yes, those boundaries are currently under discussion in the registry community, and I certainly expect them to change. (Though as po

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Steve Deering wrote: > >Would you apply the RFC3194 0.8 HD ratio to subnets within a single ISP? > > No, the plan as I understand it is to apply the HD ratio to the number > of /48s, when evaluating an ISP's application for more address space. So if an ISP came along and sai

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

At 11:18 AM -0800 1/23/02, JJ Behrens wrote: >Please forgive me for being a newbie, but it seems wise to allow >subnetting of the lower 64 bits. Afterall, it would be terrible if my >dialup ISP assigned a /64 to me, and I had to rely on some IPv6 mythical >NAT to do subnetting! The IAB/IESG recom

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Date:Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:14:50 -0800 From:Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: | There is yet another factor that limits the interface ID field to be no | less than 8 bits wide (i.e., no longer than a /120): RFC 2526

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

At 11:27 AM -0500 1/31/02, Keith Moore wrote: >e.g. If an ISP gives its customers /64s they should still be able to subnet. >subnetting a /64 is a lot beter than NAT. Doing the multi-link subnet thing is a whole lot better than NAT as well. I.e., even if you only get a /64, you don't HAVE to do N

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Steve Deering wrote: > > At 2:07 PM +0100 1/24/02, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >Nevertheless, it is not architecturally forbidden to subnet at /124 > >if you really want to... > > Actually, it is, at least for unicast addresses that do not start with > binary 000; see earlier message from me. Ho

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

About subnetting below /64, here is a quote from "ARIN Guidelines for Requesting Initial IPv6 Address Space" http://www.arin.net/regserv/ipv6/ipv6guidelines.html "The host portion of an IPv6 address is represented by the rightmost 64 bits of the address. A /64 SLA ID is the shortest network prefi

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Antonio Querubin wrote: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Antonio Querubin wrote: > > > I suspect the practice of assigning a /48 for every complex layer-3 > > network isn't scalable for many medium and large service > providers. The > > number of service providers with more than 65536 clients or > customer

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Date:Sun, 03 Feb 2002 20:45:30 +0100 From:Peter Bieringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <4756.1012765530@localhost> | Bridging can solve the problem and it's cheaper than routing. | Perhaps a cost reduce factor. Bridging isn't always possible - bridging onl

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Being a victim of the bridging wars from ten or fifteen years ago, I can assure you that bridging is a lousy solution and not the one we should use as a strategy. What we learned then, people will relearn now. Brian Peter Bieringer wrote: > > --On Sunday, February 03, 2002 12:18:28 PM +0100

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

--On Sunday, February 03, 2002 12:18:28 PM +0100 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Count the light bulbs and electric motors in your house. I don't > want to exclude *anything* for the future. Luxury cars already > contain several CAN subnets. Bridging can solve the problem and it

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Michel Py wrote: ... > Modem users will be more than happy with a /64, because they do not need > to > subnet. If one wants to share the modem connection for their home > network, > that home network is a single subnet and will do fine with a /64. > Broadband > home connections (cable/dsl) would d

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Tony Hain wrote: > Tim Chown wrote: > > If that's static /48's, the /29 boundary will need revision...(and > > certainly a /35 would be useless to any medium ISP). > > Did the term 'slow-start' get lost somewhere? As I understand rir > policy, the /35 was never intended to be

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Good points Tony - I guess we will have to wait until a large provider puts in a significant request, which may be some time yet. There are certainly more homes than universities+colleges (though of course most universities offer dialup to stduent homes :-) Tim On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Tony Hain w

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Antonio Querubin wrote: > I suspect the practice of assigning a /48 for every complex layer-3 > network isn't scalable for many medium and large service providers. The > number of service providers with more than 65536 clients or customers is

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Tony Hain wrote: > We have an allocation mechanism for the simple layer-2 network, a /64, > and a mechansim for those who want a complex layer-3, a /48. > > > > > Your described scenario only cause a problem if someone really wants > > to Layer 3 route in his home network - bu

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Hi, As per ND specification the Neighbor Advertisement message contains "O" Flag (OverRide flag). What is the purpose of this flag. Or when the nodes is supposed set this Flag. Or when the nodes are not supposed to set this flag. I suppose whenever the receiver finds a difference between the s

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Tim Chown wrote: > You assume that the /29 can be deployed in such a way that there is > 100% utilisation. Is that really the case? (If I consider how a /29 > may be used by a national academic research network provider, then > the regionalisation of the networks mean it won't be, and on top of >

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Tony Hain wrote: > To serve a million the service provider will need at least a /28, and > probably a /27 where is the problem? If you are assuming that the rir's > won't allocate a /27 to a provider that can document allocation to a > million customers then we have a problem

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Michel Py wrote: > I fail to see your point here. Lots of people will settle with a dynamic > /64. (they won't even pay 5 bucks a month more to get a static one). As Pekka pointed out, in draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-03.txt it states: "In particular, we recomme

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Tim Chown wrote: > The question is, if a service provider wants to follow the > recommendation > for a /48 allocation for a connected site, and the provider wants to > offer static /48's to always-on sites, won't it hit trouble > whether it is > using a /35 or a /29? If you say "either there are

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> Tim Chowm wrote: > The question is, if a service provider wants to follow the recommendation > for a /48 allocation for a connected site, and the provider wants to > offer static /48's to always-on sites, won't it hit trouble whether it is > using a /35 or a /29? If you say "either there are e

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Tony Hain wrote: > Did the term 'slow-start' get lost somewhere? As I understand rir > policy, the /35 was never intended to be the only allocation a serious > ISP would get. Static vs dynamic is a non-issue, because either there > are enough prefixes to route the currently co

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

>> Pekka Savola wrote: >> I'm broadening the topic to include all kinds of home users, e.g. >> xDSL, Cable etc. in addition to dial-in. > Tony Hain wrote: > No problem as the actual implementation at the consumer end is probably > similar. There will be some device between the provider network an

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Peter Bieringer wrote: > Where is the problem? > > Today they got *one* *dynamic* IPv4 address and have to be happy with > it. Connection of additional internal hosts requires masquerading, > causing perhaps problems and had (without dedicated port forwarding) > no capability to direct traffic fro

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Tim Chown wrote: > If that's static /48's, the /29 boundary will need revision...(and > certainly a /35 would be useless to any medium ISP). Did the term 'slow-start' get lost somewhere? As I understand rir policy, the /35 was never intended to be the only allocation a serious ISP would get. Stat

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Pekka Savola wrote: > I'm broadening the topic to include all kinds of home users, e.g. > xDSL, Cable etc. in addition to dial-in. No problem as the actual implementation at the consumer end is probably similar. There will be some device between the provider network and the consumer network, be t

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

--On Friday, February 01, 2002 01:04:48 PM +0100 Philip Homburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In your letter dated Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:55:16 +0100 you wrote: >> --On Thursday, January 31, 2002 03:09:08 PM +0700 Robert Elz >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I probably wouldn't either, though we don

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> What I had in mind was that if someone felt like re-inventing the wheel > and create a new autoconf, it would be extremely difficult not to use > the 48-bit MAC address (nobody would buy having ARP for IPv6), therefore > going beyong /80 would be very difficult. We're talking about a technology

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> Philip Homburg wrote: > The kids get their own networks to play multi-person games, the > light switches go on a separate network, any piece of hardware > that is not completely secure should not be on a broadcast > network, so the ADSL or cable modem, the wireless basestation, > etc. each get t

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Tony Hain wrote: > This is why sites should be allocated /48s. There is no inherent reason > to break into the interface id space for subnets. This is particularly > true when the reason is simply to satisfy the draconian address > conservation attitude required to extend the

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Tony Hain wrote: > > Suppose that you want to give each 'modem user' > > a fixed prefix, how soon do you run out of prefixes? > > If you assign a /48 to the pop and allocate /64's to the customers, you > will run out when you exceed 65536 active users. If the pop has more > po

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Philip Homburg wrote: > The kids get their own networks to play multi-person games, the > light switches go on a separate network, any piece of hardware that is > not completely secure should not be on a broadcast network, > so the ADSL or > cable modem, the wireless basestation, etc. each get the

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Philip Homburg wrote: > What happens if an organization has a modem bank for dail-in? > Do you hand > out /64s or something larger? Hand out a /64 or shorter depending on the customer. > Suppose that you want to give each 'modem user' > a fixed prefix, how soon do you run out of prefixes? If yo

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Robert Elz wrote: > I find it almost impossible to work out where /80 comes from > ... But if there's something > supposedly magic about the last 48 bits (48 now is 100% irrelevant to > autoconf, so it cannot be that) it has escaped me. EUI-48 Tony ---

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

In your letter dated Fri, 1 Feb 2002 08:33:21 -0800 you wrote: >Philip Homburg wrote: >> What happens if an organization has a modem bank for dail-in? Do you >> hand out /64s or something larger? Suppose that you want to give each >> 'modem user' a fixed prefix, how soon do you run out of prefixes

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Tomas Lund wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Robert Elz wrote: > > > | 3. Is it ok to use longer than a /64 for links ? > > > > That is, the suggestion isn't to pressure people to use /126 or something > > (as your #2 would do), nor to tell people that it isn't OK to use a /64 >

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Kre and Philip, > I find it almost impossible to work out where /80 comes from (unless > you mean to find a need to do so, in which case, then yes, I'd find > that pretty difficult too, though I prefer more often to have > constant 0 bits in higher order positions than lower ones, so I'd > tend t

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Robert Elz wrote: > | 3. Is it ok to use longer than a /64 for links ? > > That is, the suggestion isn't to pressure people to use /126 or something > (as your #2 would do), nor to tell people that it isn't OK to use a /64 /127 seems alot better? Why waste 50%? //tlund -

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

In your letter dated Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:55:16 +0100 you wrote: >--On Thursday, January 31, 2002 03:09:08 PM +0700 Robert Elz ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I probably wouldn't either, though we don't want to totally forget >> allocation efficiency - the way we make sure that IPv6 never runs >> ou

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Date:Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:16:48 -0800 From:"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | do we say: | | 1. It is ok to use a /64 for loopbacks and point to point links in the | sake of simplicity. | | 2. It is a waste to use a /64 for

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

] Subject:RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification You are both right and wrong... ;) We can never prevent a site from internally subnetting on any boundary it chooses, but we should be very clear about the consequences. At the same time we have to be consistent in

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> We can never prevent a site from internally subnetting on any boundary > it chooses, but we should be very clear about the consequences. At the > same time we have to be consistent in our discussions with the rir's and > providers about making sure sites have at least the options of /48 & > /64,

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michel Py > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:29 PM > To: Keith Moore > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification > > > >>> Keith Moo

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> >>> Keith Moore wrote: > >>> By allowing sites to subnet /64s we aren't forcing them to give up > >>> autoconfig, private addresses, etc... > > >> Michel Py wrote: > >> Would you educate me on how you do autoconfig, let's say, on a /85 ? > > > Keith Moore wrote: > > you don't. a site that cho

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

>>> Keith Moore wrote: >>> By allowing sites to subnet /64s we aren't forcing them to give up >>> autoconfig, private addresses, etc... >> Michel Py wrote: >> Would you educate me on how you do autoconfig, let's say, on a /85 ? > Keith Moore wrote: > you don't. a site that chooses to subnet be

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> > Keith Moore wrote: > > By allowing sites to subnet /64s we aren't forcing them to give up > > autoconfig, private addresses, etc... > > Would you educate me on how you do autoconfig, let's say, on a /85 ? you don't. a site that chooses to subnet below /64 is inherently choosing not to use s

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I don't know how much 'forcing' we can do, but providing customers with > extra flexibility in how they assign addresses won't hurt. > It sounds like IPv6 is just a redo of the "plastic", "toy", legacy IPv4 Internet. http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv8/Pap

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

--On Thursday, January 31, 2002 03:09:08 PM +0700 Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | I concur that it would not be wise to assume anything, but > saving IPv6 | addresses does not strike me as good idea if it > brings more complexity | and does not bring anything else than > allocatio

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> > presuming, of course, that IPv4 service with a stable address > > is available at that time, and that the ISP doesn't filter 6to4 packets. > > In those cases Shipworm is the mechansim of choice. no it's not, because shipworm doesn't provide stable addresses under these conditions either. a

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

TECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:05 AM > To: Tony Hain > Cc: Michel Py; Keith Moore; Robert Elz; Brian E Carpenter; JJ Behrens; > Irina Dayal; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification > > > > > 1. Telling

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> > 1. Telling ISPs that they should give customers that want to subnet > > a /48. (or tell customers that want to subnet that, if they don't > > get a /48 from their ISP, they'd better shop somewhere else) > > We should also not forget to point out that they already have one or > more /48's from

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Michel Py wrote: > 1. Telling ISPs that they should give customers that want to subnet > a /48. (or tell customers that want to subnet that, if they don't > get a /48 from their ISP, they'd better shop somewhere else) We should also not forget to point out that they already have one or more /48's

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Keith, > Keith Moore wrote: > I think it would be much wiser to NOT impose constraints on how > people orgainze their networks until we have a hell of a good > reason. e.g. If an ISP gives its customers /64s they should still > be able to subnet. subnetting a /64 is a lot beter than NAT. I think

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

kre, >> Michel Py wrote: >> I concur that it would not be wise to assume anything, but saving IPv6 >> addresses does not strike me as good idea if it brings more complexity >> and does not bring anything else than allocation efficiency. > Robert Elz wrote: > I probably wouldn't either, though we

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> There is nothing that forbids subneting into the IID (although it would > be difficult to subnet smaller than /80), but don't you think that, in the > time being, it would be wise to stick to /64 unless we have a hell of a > good reason? I think it would be much wiser to NOT impose constraints

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Date:Sat, 26 Jan 2002 11:35:51 -0800 From:"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | I concur that it would not be wise to assume anything, but saving IPv6 | addresses does not strike me as good idea if it brings more complexity | and doe

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

kre, >> Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Nevertheless, it is not architecturally forbidden to subnet at >> /124 if you really want to > Robert Elz wrote: > No, and it can be a good thing to do No, but I am not so sure about it being a good thing. > - if I have a lot of P2P links that I am going to

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Date:Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:07:28 +0100 From:Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Nevertheless, it is not architecturally forbidden to subnet at /124 | if you really want to No, and it can be a good thing to do - if I have a lot of

Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Nevertheless, it is not architecturally forbidden to subnet at /124 if you really want to - but doing so at /48 is more likely to be supported by all products. If I was an implementor, I certainly wouldn't worry if a /124 prefix kicked me onto a slow path, as long as prefixes from /3 to /64 were h

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> JJ Behrens wrote: > Please forgive me for being a newbie, but it seems wise to > allow subnetting of the lower 64 bits. Afterall, it would > be terrible if my dialup ISP assigned a /64 to me, and I > had to rely on some IPv6 mythical NAT to do subnetting! I don't think this will happen. IPv6

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

Subject: RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification > > > > From: Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Keith is technically correct, a site may choose to subnet the low 64 > > bits. It might be unwise to do so, because they would be > giving up the > > autoconfiguration

RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

> From: Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Keith is technically correct, a site may choose to subnet the low 64 > bits. It might be unwise to do so, because they would be giving up the > autoconfiguration & privacy capabilities, but that is their choice. They > may also find acquiring routing hardwar