nanog mailing list archives
Re: Stupid Ipv6 question...
From: Kevin Loch <kloch () hotnic net>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:41:20 -0500
Leo Bicknell wrote:
With the exception of auto-configuration, I have yet to see any IPv6 gear that cares about prefix length. Configuring a /1 to a /128 seems to work just fine. If anyone knows of gear imposing narrower limits on what can be configured I'd be facinated to know about them.
64 bit prefixes are the mattress tags of IPv6 interfaces. -- Kevin Loch
Current thread:
- Stupid Ipv6 question... Dan Mahoney, System Admin (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Stephane Bortzmeyer (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Dan Mahoney, System Admin (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Stephen Sprunk (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Lars Erik Gullerud (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Leo Bicknell (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Kevin Loch (Nov 19)
- RE: Stupid Ipv6 question... Scott Morris (Nov 19)
- Re: [nanog] RE: Stupid Ipv6 question... Dan Mahoney, System Admin (Nov 19)
- RE: [nanog] RE: Stupid Ipv6 question... Scott Morris (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Lars Erik Gullerud (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Stephane Bortzmeyer (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... James (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Crist Clark (Nov 19)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Kevin Oberman (Nov 20)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 bmanning (Nov 20)
- RE: Stupid Ipv6 Scott Morris (Nov 20)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Joe Abley (Nov 21)
- Re: Stupid Ipv6 question... Kevin Oberman (Nov 22)