[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       nanog
Subject:    Re: IPv6 words
From:       Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus ! com>
Date:       2011-06-24 15:16:38
Message-ID: 5C24E8A1-F906-428B-B54D-CAC26756B4DE () bogus ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On Jun 24, 2011, at 6:50 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> In a message written on Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 09:10:53AM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb \
> wrote:
> > If you want to do it, make sure you do understand the restrictions that apply to \
> > IPv6 addresses, like U/G bits, etc.  Too many people unfortunately just think \
> > it's cool in a weird geeky sense and violate RFCs with them.  I was very close to \
> > write an article about that after W6D...
> 
> Perhaps I missed something in an RFC somewhere, but I believe those
> bits only have meaning locally on an Ethernet LAN.  They have no
> meaning when used on non-Ethernet networks, for instance POS or on
> a Loopback.  If someone wanted to use them for a /128 virtual for
> their web site for instance that would be ok.
> 
> Or, turning that around, if you assume an IPv6 address is part of a /64
> on an Ethernet network, you have made a false assumption.

A load-balancer attached to it's first hop router via a /126 may well advertise the \
virtual ip's it's serving (and treat them) as /128s. the assumption that links are \
/64s  falls down a lot (even on ethernet) when most of them are point-to-point.

> -- 
> Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]