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

RE: Use of extended prefix lengths

To: "Chuck Anderson" <cra@WPI.EDU>, <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Use of extended prefix lengths
From: "Dunn, Jeffrey H." <jdunn@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:58:48 -0400
Cc: "Dunn, Jeffrey H." <jdunn@mitre.org>
In-reply-to: <20080605174330.GB10754@angus.ind.WPI.EDU>
References: <0AC4B700F00DBB4C94F95727E09914140116FCFA@IMCSRV7.MITRE.ORG> <20080605174330.GB10754@angus.ind.WPI.EDU>

Cool.  What E-switch are you using?

Best Regards,
 
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Anderson
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 1:44 PM
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Use of extended prefix lengths

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 12:10:44PM -0400, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
> I was discussing the possibility of using IPv6 prefix lengths greater
> than 64 bits with some colleagues and wondered if anyone had any
> experience with doing so.  Specifically, has anyone tried it?
> Thoughts?

We are using /120's for router links on Ethernet VLANs, and /128 
router loopback addresses without problems.

References:
- Use of extended prefix lengths
  - From: "Dunn, Jeffrey H." <jdunn@mitre.org>
- Re: Use of extended prefix lengths
  - From: Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>

Prev by Date: Re: Use of extended prefix lengths
Next by Date: Re: Use of extended prefix lengths
Previous by thread: Re: Use of extended prefix lengths
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread