On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > 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. :) > I agree that SLAAC doesn't belong on PTP links, but, I fail to see why having /64s on them is problematic if you take proper precautions.
Owen
