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

Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?)

Subject: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?)
From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:34:50 +0200
In-reply-to: <CANbAyV5i+jMeAztUhUOwA5D77AJanxYETeW6LfxK4wHYj+CpRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CANbAyV5i+jMeAztUhUOwA5D77AJanxYETeW6LfxK4wHYj+CpRQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

> RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.

But that would mean that the ...:fffe address also shouldn't work. Considering RFC 2526 then filtering those addresses when used as source address makes sense.

- Sander

PS: I'm in contact with a network engineer from Hetzner now to see what is really happening

References:
- Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?
  - From: paul.zugnoni at jivesoftware.com (Paul Zugnoni)
- Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?)
  - From: andy at strugglers.net (Andy Smith)
- Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?)
  - From: laidlaw at consecro.com (Rob Laidlaw)

Prev by Date: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?)
Next by Date: IP tunnel MTU
Previous by thread: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?)
Next by thread: Issues encountered with assigning all ones IPv6 /64 address? (Was Re: Issues encountered with assigning .0 and .255 as usable addresses?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread