On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:28:05 -0400, Michael Lambert wrote: >On 21 Jun 2012, at 18:04, Mark Felder wrote: > >> The provider shouldn't be using a /64 for the link net. That means your >router is getting the broadcasts from everyone else on that link net. The >provider should be setting aside something like a /64 for link nets and >actually be giving you /126s.
No. The smallest network IS a /64. This even applies to link-local addresses which are only used for point-to-point connections. Just run ifconfig on your machine and see. Your ISP has enough /64s to give you one that contains no other clients. > >There is a school of thought that says point-to-point links should be >allocated /64s, just like LAN subnets. Not everyone agrees. I like /120s to >keep things octet-aligned for reverse DNS. It is not a "school of thought" - it is how it is. I have seen one /126 out in the wild but it is very lonely. I manage a /32 and that would let me hand out as many /64s as there are IPv4 addresses in total (4G). My ISP for my home connection uses a dynamic /64 per client to carry my /56 which is sliced up here to use 4 /64s for my various LANs. The fact that the link has a dynamic address is irrelevant as the ISP routes all traffic to me over the link whatever address it currently has. There are no packets travelling on the link that are not for me. R/ *** NOTE *** Please DO NOT CC me. I <am> subscribed to the list. Mail to the sender address that does not originate at the list server is tarpitted. The reply-to: address is provided for those who feel compelled to reply off list. Thankyou. Rod/ --- This life is not the real thing. It is not even in Beta. If it was, then OpenBSD would already have a man page for it.
