[6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?

[Jesper Skriver]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 01:11:58PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Jesper Skriver wrote:
> > But using a non /126 or /127 on a p2p link can result in a forwarding
> > loop, assume the the 2 routers have :1 and :2, and someone sends traffic
> > to :3, if the netmask is larger than /126, the routers will do a longest
> > match lookup, will find the interface prefix, and send the packet on the
> > p2p interface - unless they have a specific check to drop these packets.
> 
> Actually the routers seem to have that check.  I can't tell you off-hand
> where this is documented/recommended, but it works.
> 
> Look at this example.  Two Cisco 12.2S boxes, one end is :101, the other
> one is :102, tunnel configured as /124:

Good - but does all IPv6 implementations have this check ? (which likely
have a performance impact), it it wise to have a recommendation that
assume this check exist ?

/Jesper

-- 
Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skriver(dot)dk  -  CCIE #5456

One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them,
One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them.