[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: andy at strugglers.net (Andy Smith)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:09:29 +0000
In-reply-to: <CANbAyV5i+jMeAztUhUOwA5D77AJanxYETeW6LfxK4wHYj+CpRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CANbAyV5i+jMeAztUhUOwA5D77AJanxYETeW6LfxK4wHYj+CpRQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rob,

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 08:16:48AM -0500, Rob Laidlaw wrote:
> RFC 2526 reserves the last 128 host addresses in each subnet for anycast use.

D'oh, I didn't even think to check for reserved addresses. Thanks.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

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