subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
rps at maine.edu
Wed Dec 28 06:13:30 CST 2011
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
<iljitsch at muada.com> wrote:
> Also somehow the rule that all normal address space must use 64-bit interface
> identifiers found its way into the specs for no reason that I have ever been able
> to uncover. On the other hand there's also the rule that IPv6 is classless and
> therefore routing on any prefix length must be supported, although for some
> implementations forwarding based on > /64 is > somewhat less efficient.
This ambiguity has always bothered me. The address architecture RFC
requires a 64-bit interface identifier, but it's required to be
unenforced by implementation, which makes it more of a suggestion at
best. I think the wording should be updated to changed MUST to
SHOULD. That said, and despite my own use of prefix lengths other
than 64-bit, I do believe that a 64-bit prefix for each host network
is in our long-term interest. Not having to size networks based on
the number of hosts is a good thing. Features made possible by a
64-bit address space is a good thing.
Epic Communications Specialist
Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526
Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System
More information about the NANOG