[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?

Subject: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
From: sthaug at nethelp.no (sthaug at nethelp.no)
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:10:52 +0100 (CET)
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <CAPLq3UPJqwrqeOJornSAEQjNa=b7BOB6r3XZWugHUGyLAsq9Wg@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]>

> On the other hand there's also the rule that IPv6 is classless and therefore routing on any prefix length must be supported, although for some implementations forwarding based on > /64 is somewhat less efficient.

Can you please name names for the "somewhat less efficient" part? I've
seen this and similar claims several times, but the lack of specific
information is rather astounding.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no

Follow-Ups:
- subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
  - From: glen.kent at gmail.com (Glen Kent)
- subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
  - From: malayter at gmail.com (Ryan Malayter)

References:
- subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
  - From: glen.kent at gmail.com (Glen Kent)
- subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
  - From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum)

Prev by Date: Misconceptions, was: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
Next by Date: Misconceptions, was: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
Previous by thread: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
Next by thread: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread