ISC DHCPv6 Server and Stateful Address Allocation

[John Jason Brzozowski]

Exactly where I was coming from.

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:00 PM, <Greg.Rabil at ins.com> wrote:

> No, the "range" 2001:558:ff10:870:8000::/65 encompasses the addresses:
>
> 2001:558:ff10:870:8000:0000:0000:0000 -
> 2001:558:ff10:870:8FFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF
>
> Which does _not_ include 2001:558:ff10:870:f914:a7c1:42d1:faa1
>
> Regards,
> Greg Rabil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org [mailto:
> dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Hutzelman
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 4:50 PM
> To: Users of ISC DHCP
> Cc: Users of ISC DHCP
> Subject: Re: ISC DHCPv6 Server and Stateful Address Allocation
>
> --On Monday, January 05, 2009 01:43:59 PM -0500 John Jason Brzozowski
> <jjmbcom at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Given the above I would assume that any address allocated from the
> > range6 2001:558:ff10:870:8000::/65 would have the 65 bit set leaving the
> > remaining 63 bits to be populated dynamically by the server.  This is now
> > what I am observing however.  Instead I see the following:
>
> This address:
>
> > RCV:  | | X-- IAADDR 2001:558:ff10:870:f914:a7c1:42d1:faa1
>
> Certainly lies within this range:
>
> > range6 2001:558:ff10:870:8000::/65;
>
> Where is the problem?
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>



-- 
===================================
John Jason Brzozowski
===================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20090105/e77891b3/attachment-0001.html>