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, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com 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 =========================