Re: problem configuring squeeze
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> 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
Heh.
> The nice thing about standards is that there's so many of them :-)
Well, as long as you request that the equipment supports rfc6164, it
certainly is far more sane than running DAD on a /127.
But we need also to check that Linux supports rfc6164 and doesn't do
anything too idiotic. It certainly can screw up rather nicely on IPv4 /31
when ifconfig is used (instead of iproute) because it does not EINVAL the
broadcast address (requested by stupid ifconfig) as it should nor considers
a IPv4 /31 link to be point-to-point in the first place.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: