On Friday, September 27, 2013 06:13:35 PM Adam Thompson wrote: > FWIW, I've had to look into this lately and went trawling > through the RFCs for guidance. > The IETF is very firmly on the side of always using a /64 > for subnets. At least RFCs 3177, 3315, 3627, 3736, 3956, > 3971, 4291, 4862, 4866, 4872, 4941, 5375 either mandate, > recommend, specify, or rely on, the use of /64 for *all* > subnets with hosts. > This goes so far as language in the RFCs that reads like > "...however, not all IPv6 implementations prevent the > use of longer subnet prefixes at this time...". > (Quoting from memory, might not be 100% accurate.)
Things change, and will keep changing as we gain more IPv6 experience. Look at RFC 6177, for example (which obsoletes one of the ones you mention, RFC 3177). > However, I do *not* want to be renumbering my IPv6 hosts > down the road simply because I wanted to be the most > efficient guy on the block. Nor do I want to be the guy > who can't run protocol XYZ because I didn't use /64s. Personally, I've been hearing this particular argument for nearly 10x years, and I think it's FUD. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
