Re: problem configuring squeeze
Bjørn Mork <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.ipv6 |
|---|---|
| Organization | m |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, 16 May 2011, Bjørn Mork wrote: >> I don't think that will be much of a problem, given that you probably >> have full control over the vserver network. Routing on longer prefixes >> than /64 work just fine, and there are many advocating using /126 or >> /127 for point to point links. > > /126 is fine. /127 is not really a good idea beacause of DAD, and it is > not like using /126 instead of /127 is going to waste too much valuable > address space (unlike /31 versus /30 in IPv4). No, waste is not an argument. The main argument for both /127 and /126 is to avoid having unused addresses on a link. But /126 will still leave one adress, which is why some prefers /127 instead. Although this does mean that you have to ignore the router anycast address. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627 Well, that's one informational opinion. There's also the recent standards track opinion: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164 The nice thing about standards is that there's so many of them :-) Bjørn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]