Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table sizeconsiderations

[Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:52:37AM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
> What I have done on point to points and small subnets between routers 
> is to simply make static neighbor entries.  That eliminates any 
> neighbor table exhaustion causing the desired neighbors to become 
> unreachable.  I also do the same with neighbors at public peering 
> points.  Yes, that comes at the cost of having to reconfigure the 
> entry if a MAC address changes, but that doesn't happen often.

And this is better than just not trying to implement IPv6 stateless 
auto-configuration on ptp links in the first place how exactly? Don't 
get taken in by the people waving an RFC around without actually taking 
the time to do a little critical thinking on their own first, /64s and 
auto-configuration just don't belong on router ptp links. And btw only a 
handful of routers are so poorly designed that they depend on not having 
subnets longer than /64s when doing IPv6 lookups, and there are many 
other good reasons why you should just not be using those boxes in the 
first place. :)

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)