Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

Mon Jan 24 19:04:35 UTC 2011

 well... you are correct - he did say shorter.  me - i'd hollar for my good 
friends Fred and Radia (helped w/ the old vitalink mess) on the best way to
manage an arp storm and/or cam table of  a /64 of MAC addresses. :)  It was
hard enough to manage a "lan"/single broadcast domain that was global in scope
and had 300,000 devices on it.

"route when you can, bridge when you must"

--bill

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:58:25AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Bill... Last I looked, /120 was longer than /64, not shorter.
> 
> What I'm not understanding would be why anyone would want to use
> something shorter than /64 on a LAN.
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Jan 24, 2011, at 5:28 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 
> > as a test case, i built a small home network out of  /120. works just fine.
> > my home network has been native IPv6 for about 5 years now, using a /96 and IVI.
> > 
> > some thoughts.  disable RD/RA/ND.
> > 		none of the DHCPv6 code works like DHCP, so I re-wrote
> > 			client and server code so that it does.
> > 		static address assignment is a good thing for services like DNS/HTTP
> > 		secure dynmaic update is your friend
> > 
> > summary - its not easy, vendors don't want to help.  but it can be done.
> > 
> > --bill
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:59:59AM -0200, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> >> The subject says it all... anyone with experience with a setup like this ?
> >> 
> >> I am particularly wondering about possible NDP breakage.
> >> 
> >> cheers!
> >> 
> >> Carlos
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> --
> >> =========================
> >> Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo
> >> http://www.labs.lacnic.net
> >> =========================
> 