problem with dhcp setup

[John Jason Brzozowski (CISSP, RHCT)]

Ok so in the case originally cited the declaration could have been
fec0:3:0:1::/64?

I think a warning is you suggest is a good idea.


On 6/14/07 5:48 AM, "Shane Kerr" <Shane_Kerr at isc.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> John,
> 
>> About the range6: you probably wanted to specify /128 rather than /64. We
>> should
>> probably make it an error if you specify an invalid network (like 1:2:3:4::/8
>> or
>> something). I'll try to get this fixed for 4.0.0a2 also.
>>> [jjmb] So a range6 using a /128 would allow for the assignment of a single
>>> IPv6 address?  I do not believe this should be limited to a /128, in fact,
>>> it should allow for variable prefix lengths.
> 
> One problem here is that fec0:3:0::100/64 is not a valid prefix. Address
> expanded out, with a bitmask for /64 below:
> 
>     fec0:0003:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0100
>     1111:1111:1111:1111:0000:0000:0000:0000
>                                        ^^^
> 
> That bit on the right-hand side is invalid, which is why I suggested /128. The
> next alpha of the software will detect this error and let you know about it,
> rather than silently masking out invalid bits.
> 
> The software allows any prefix length, from /0 to /128, or any arbitrary
> range,
> for range6 statements.
> 
> - --
> Shane
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFGcQ79MsfZxBO4kbQRAiSyAJkBfMcSuBCa6ssXBMmR34wnK6kjYQCfVjMW
> 2f+bLbE80KQrtqu2Iz2NVTM=
> =JZGe
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

===============================================
John Jason Brzozowski (CISSP, RHCT)
jjmb at jjmb.com
(p) 484-994-6787
(f) 610-616-4535
===============================================