Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Any issue with IPv6 address mask >64 bits?

Reading 'RFC3513: Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture' I see:

2.5.4 Global Unicast Addresses

All global unicast addresses other than those that start with binary 000 have a 64-bit interface ID field (i.e., n + m = 64), formatted as described in section 2.5.1. Global unicast addresses that start with binary 000 have no such constraint on the size or structure of the interface ID field.

Any mask > 64 bits would encroach into the "interface ID" field of the address. Does anyone know if this bit-boundary is significant? Will this bit-boundary be [is it now] 'enforced' somehow?

From the same RFC:

The space allocated for Global Unicast has a binary prefix of 001.

The RFC seems to imply that all IPv6 global unicast addresses have an interface ID field of 64 bits and therefore have a netmask of 64bits, or less, although this is not specifically stated.

For example, should a point-to-point link have a /64 instead of an IPv4-analogous /126?

Thanks in advance.

CreatePlease login to create content