nanog mailing list archives
Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
From: Joel Maslak <jmaslak () antelope net>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:38:50 -0700
On Dec 27, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Glen Kent <glen.kent () gmail com> wrote:
I had assumed that nodes derive their link local address from the Route Advertisements. They derive their least significant 64 bytes from their MACs and the most significant 64 from the prefix announced in the RAs.
No, link local addresses are not derived from RAs. Even a system not connected to a router will have a link local address on each ethernet (I couldn't tell you how link local works on PPP, ATM, etc, without looking it up - but it doesn't require /64 networks).
Current thread:
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?, (continued)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Karl Auer (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Alexandru Petrescu (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Jonathan Lassoff (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Sven Olaf Kamphuis (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 26)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Joel Maslak (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Chuck Anderson (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 25)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 25)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ray Soucy (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Alexandru Petrescu (Dec 29)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 28)