nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
From: Roy Badami <roy () gnomon org uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:34:01 +0100
Iljitsch> That's exactly the reason why the IETF has such a hard Iljitsch> time moving forward: whatever way of abusing IP you can Iljitsch> think of, someone is doing it today, and breaking that Iljitsch> "feature" will gravely upset them. It's the age old Iljitsch> battle between the irresistible force (progress) and the Iljitsch> immovable object (users) I guess. And on that vein perhaps it's prudent for people using network prefixes longer than /64 to take care to ensure that the bit positions in the IPv6 address that should correspond to the u and g bits in the modified EUI-64 interface ID (according to RFC 3513) are both set to zero. -roy
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning bmanning (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Randy Bush (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Mark Andrews (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Daniel Senie (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Leo Bicknell (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Randy Bush (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning David Conrad (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Roy Badami (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Kevin Loch (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Roy Badami (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 11)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning David Conrad (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 Address Planning Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 10)