well... you are correct - he did say shorter. me - i'd hollar for my good friends Fred and Radia (helped w/ the old vitalink mess) on the best way to manage an arp storm and/or cam table of a /64 of MAC addresses. :) It was hard enough to manage a "lan"/single broadcast domain that was global in scope and had 300,000 devices on it.
"route when you can, bridge when you must" --bill On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:58:25AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > Bill... Last I looked, /120 was longer than /64, not shorter. > > What I'm not understanding would be why anyone would want to use > something shorter than /64 on a LAN. > > Owen > > On Jan 24, 2011, at 5:28 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > as a test case, i built a small home network out of /120. works just fine. > > my home network has been native IPv6 for about 5 years now, using a /96 and > > IVI. > > > > some thoughts. disable RD/RA/ND. > > none of the DHCPv6 code works like DHCP, so I re-wrote > > client and server code so that it does. > > static address assignment is a good thing for services like > > DNS/HTTP > > secure dynmaic update is your friend > > > > summary - its not easy, vendors don't want to help. but it can be done. > > > > --bill > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:59:59AM -0200, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: > >> The subject says it all... anyone with experience with a setup like this ? > >> > >> I am particularly wondering about possible NDP breakage. > >> > >> cheers! > >> > >> Carlos > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> ========================= > >> Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo > >> http://www.labs.lacnic.net > >> ========================= >
