On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Mark Smith <
i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
> Apologies for that. Can we generalise the subject into non-64 bit
> IIDs, as it also covers the /127 case, and nearly all the reasons for
> non-/64s on LANs are the same as in the draft?
>
No
>> I know of a LAN that's currently operating with more than 30k nodes on it.
>
> With a single IPv4 or IPv6 subnet on it?
Yes. It's a mesh of L2 switching.
Tony
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administ
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:34:30 -0500
"Frank Bulk - iName.com" wrote:
> Did you get assigned a /48 that you feel that you are address constrained?
>
No.
> The whole point of IPv6 is plentiful addresses. At this time I'm planning
> to assign a /64 per PPPoE link, and if they want it, a /56 via DH
> So, I really don't see why LAN segments *need* /64s either then. LAN
> segments will never have 2^64 nodes on them either - most only have no
> more than a few hundred nodes.
IPv6 LAN segments do not *NEED* a /64. IPv6 LAN segments *ARE*
a /64 by definition. It has nothing to do with the number
>>> So, I really don't see why LAN segments *need* /64s either then.
>> as the subject, but not the $subject, has changed, could you please
>> remove me from the cc:s. thanks.
> Apologies for that. Can we generalise the subject into non-64 bit
> IIDs, as it also covers the /127 case, and nearly al
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:17:27 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> > So, I really don't see why LAN segments *need* /64s either then.
>
> as the subject, but not the $subject, has changed, could you please
> remove me from the cc:s. thanks.
Apologies for that. Can we generalise the subject into non-64 bi
Hi Tony,
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:36:01 -0700
Tony Li wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lets not make P2P links a special case. Lets do the job properly. Lets
> > make node addresses 8 bits or less.
>
> I know of a LAN that's currently operating with more than 30k nodes on it.
>
With a single IPv4 or IPv6 su
