Going smaller than a /64

My team works with an allotment of IPv4 and IPv6 space, which is given to us from a larger organization in our company (we treat them like and ISP, where we request and are given IP space and allocate this across our buildings and sites as we deem appropriate), and have been given several /58's and /59's to make do with, which has been fine for years. Now we are looking at how to better allocate these resources, and I am curious if anyone has decided to carve up smaller than a /64?
My thoughts are, that while we currently use RA for IPv6 autodiscovery, and a /64 is the smallest network the RFC accounts for, I could chop a single /64 into several thousand /96's and uses these for PTP IPv6 routing only. This would save us a ton of IPv6 space, which as we deploy more and more Vlan interfaces and our network grows, I can see us running out of in the coming year(s), which would require asking for more IPv6 space, that we really don't need. Doing so would only be for PTP IPv6 routed links, and not use stateless autoconfig, and would allow us to re-IP current IPv6 PTP's using these /96 network and reclaim a large portion of our /64 space which was already deployed as PTP links.
Thoughts?

Using /128 for loopbacks is fine. My personalpreference is using a /120 as the next step.
This is similar to a /24 in ipv4 (254 usable addresses) and one /64 suffices for an awful lot of them.
The way the subnets of size /120 look is easier to understand than those using smaller masks (which really serves no purpose due to the vastness of the address ranges available).
This would go like:
2001:db8:1::0100 - 2001:db8:1::01ff
2001:db8:1::0200 - 2001:db8:1::02ff
2001:db8:1::0300 - 2001:db8:1::03ff
Anyway, at least I would recommend to use masks which are a multiple of 8-bits, just for ease of administration.
If you have a requirement to use SLAAC, /64 is the smallest subnet you can use.
regards,
Leo

Similar Messages

Problems with text in iWeb publishing much larger, or smaller than in iWeb (it is insane)!

More than a year ago I had a problem with my iWeb not publishing correctly: links to other websites would not open in a separate window as designed in iWeb. I got help from an AppleCare techie and after he did a lot of tests, he concluded I had a corrupted Domain file (which became apparent after I upgraded to OS Snow Leopard). I don't remember if I discussed with this techie another problem I had been having for as long as I had used iWeb, and that was "exploding" text: certain words, often italicized, would be huge, after publishing, relative to the surrounding text. Sometimes certain words, or sentences would be smaller than designed in iWeb. Through trial and error I would sort of solve these problems by enlarging text boxes, or making the offending word or phrase one text point smaller. Sometimes deleting the text box entirely, and starting over would work. And then there are the weird things that happen when my wife opens my website in Internet Explorer: things that make no sense and seem to be totally out of my control.
So, I've spent a long time rebuilding my website in this supposedly uncorrupted Domain file, and today I finally finished and published to my hard drive, checked it out, and the "exploding" text is there with a vengeance. So much so that I may just stick with my original ("corrupted") Domain file, the text problem on this new one seems even worse than the old one. Anyone had this problem? I meant to ask this question years ago, but got a bit lazy.
Another question is: I've heard Apple is going to discontinue iWeb. Despite my problems with the program, I rely on it. What are the options going to be for iWeb users?

Well you heard wrong didn't you!
Apple is discontinuing MobileMe, which is the hosting in favour of iCloud services which will not contain any hosting.
iWeb is an app and as far as we know you can still continue to use it - it will still work so carry on using it if you are happy with it.
If you want to look at other alternatives to iWeb, then others suggest RapidWeaver and Sandvox as being closer to iWeb - both are available via the Mac App store.
Also Freeway Express and Flux 3 are worth looking at - more design freedom and you are not restricted to templates as with RapidWeaver.

Image in Photoshop looks smaller than in a viewer. Please help!!!

When i view an image in PS CC in looks 2 times smaller than in Mac OS Preview or in any other viewer. I tried it on another computer - same thing. (Photoshop CC, 15 inch Macbook Pro with Retina display)
Moreover, while the image looks sharp in photoshop, in viewer it looks like it's been magnified to 200%. So i create an image in photoshop say 300x300 pixels, 72 dpi, save it as jpeg, open in Preview at 100% and it looks twice as big as in photoshop and blury. if i post this image to the website, it looks exacly as in viewer, but not like in photoshop. Don't know what to do. Please help

You do not understand some things. Any image DPI resolution is meaningless when it comes to displays. Displays are normally run are their native resolution which is not 72DPI. Retina displays are high resolution displays and many applications user interfaces were designed for display with low dpi resolution like 96DPI. So their user interfaces will display very small on high resolution displays. So Apple Mac OS may have to scale up some application their User interface so the will display the same size as the would on a low resolution display to be useable. It is also possible that the Mac viewer may also scale up things so the look like the would on low resolution displays. Photoshop would most likely display images on a retina display without scaling things up. So the would smaller and sharper in Photoshop. It all about resolution. A pixel has no size till there is a DPI association. DPI defines pixel size for example 300 dpi with square aspect ratio would mean there are 9000 pixels per square inch each pixel would be 1/300"x1/300" At 100DPI each square inch contain contain 1000 pixels each would be 1/100x1/100inch an image with 1200x1800pixels would print 4"x6" at 300dpi and would print 12" x 18" at 100DPI the 300dpi image is smaller and sharper then the 100DPI image.
Web pages are normally design to fit on displays. Displays have a limited number of pixels, So web pages are design for the mythical standard display. In the past displays all had low resolution and the number of pixel they had were typically 640x480, 800x600 then 1024x768 all had 4:3 aspect ratios. That changed some displays showed up with 5:4 aspect ratios then in 2001 IBM showed up with LCD 22.2" 9.2 MP 16:10 204dpi and 3860x2400pisels. The marketplace was not ready at that time. Even now the marketplace is not ready. They are making 10" tablets these days with 2560x1600 pixels with a 300DPI resolution. Web pages these days need versions for high resolution mobile devices like laptops and tablets as well as for desktops on old devices. Other solutions are being worked on to dynamically alter web a page on servers and devices for the display the user is currently using.
Bet you still do not know what to do but perhaps you understand what is going on.

ORA-01200: actual file size of 437759 is smaller than correct size of 43776

Hi,
I am getting the following unexpected errors while going to create CONTROL files after successful completion of offline/online oracle backup RESTORE (of PRD system) on Quality system. We are following Database specific system copy method to do the same.
All the required pre & post restore activities for the same were carried out. Even the same RESTORE activities are performed with different different online/offline backups of PRD system to do such system copy. But, the thing is stuck at control file creation step with the following same error which is seen again & again after every DB restore operation.....
SQL> @/oracle/AEQ/saptrace/usertrace/CONTROL.SQL
ORACLE instance started.
Total System Global Area 4714397696 bytes
Fixed Size                  2050336 bytes
Variable Size            2365589216 bytes
Database Buffers         2332033024 bytes
Redo Buffers               14725120 bytes
CREATE CONTROLFILE REUSE SET DATABASE "AEQ" RESETLOGS ARCHIVELOG
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-01503: CREATE CONTROLFILE failed
ORA-01200: actual file size of 437759 is smaller than correct size of 437760 blocks
ORA-01110: data file 4: '/oracle/AEQ/sapdata1/sr3_1/sr3.data1'
At OS level the file size of sr3.data1 is found 3586129920 bytes (= 437760 * 8192 bytes).
host1:oraaeq 20> cd /oracle/AEQ/sapdata1/sr3_1
host1:oraaeq 21> ll
total 7004176
-rw-r--r--   1 oraaeq     dba        3586129920 May 11 02:26 sr3.data1
The above mentioned error is coming for all 294 data files. The reported file size difference is only of 1 Block in all data files. The DB block size is 8192 bytes.
Environment: (for SAP QUALITY & PRD systems)
OS: HP_UX ia64 B.11.23
SAP System : SAP ECC 6.0
Database: Oracle 10.2.0.2.0
Your help for this reported issue will be highly appreciated.
Regards,
Bhavik G. Shroff

Hi,
Thanks for your response.
We already have tried the same whatever you have mentioned as suggestions in ur last post .
We already tried to extend all 294 data-files as mentioned in that oracle forum link.
Its not the recommended way to play with data-files in such a way as it can lead to other unnecessary errors.
We have seen the following errors after successful creation of control file by manually extending all those 294 files (it was around 10hrs job).
Specify log: {<RET>=suggested | filename | AUTO | CANCEL}
auto
ORA-00332: archived log is too small - may be incompletely archived
ORA-00334: archived log: '/oracle/AEQ/oraarch/AEQarch1_268984_629943661.dbf'
have you tried also restoring init<SID>.ora file from PRD to new system.
I think its not having relationship with control file generation. Both systems are having same init files with respective SIDs.
Did you find any other points in your further investigation ?
I am thinking to perform Fresh SAP System Installation with same SID (AEQ) and then will try to do Database Restore again with last offline backup of AEQ system.
Regards,
Bhavik G. Shroff

Time Machine backup smaller than source

Hi everybody -
I just did my Time Machine backup, and I've noticed that the content on the backup is about 5 GB smaller than the content on my MBP's source. (And yes, this deficit is taking into account the items I have already excluded from backup.)
In fact, when I open up Time Machine options, and I see the list of excluded items, the "approximate size of backup" says 240GB, but the actual size of the backup is 235GB. Any idea what's going on here? Assuming that everything is working as it should, I'm not terribly concerned about this discrepancy, but if it's indicative of something not working properly, I want to get it taken care of, should I experience a need to restore to a previous backup at some point.
Ideas? Thanks!

Try a new post in the 10.6 Time Machine forum.
DALE

Custom UIComponent Graphics smaller than ClipArea, need larger GraphicsArea

What I am trying to accomplish is a JTable with fixed columns (and eventually rows) without going the route of using multiple tables and using the JScrollPane RowHeaderViewport (I am using it for a row header). I have the following code where PaintCells gets called by Paint. This code is in my custom TableUI class
private void paintCell(final Graphics g, final int row, final int column, final Rectangle cellRect, final Rectangle gridRect)
boolean isFocused = _table.isFocusOwner() && _table.getSelectionModel().getLeadSelectionIndex() == row && _table.getColumnModel().getSelectionModel().getLeadSelectionIndex() == column;
Component renderingComponent = _table.getCellRenderer(row, column).getTableCellRendererComponent(_table, _table.getValueAt(row, column), _table.isCellSelected(row, column), isFocused, row, column);
g.setColor(_table.getBackground());
g.fillRect(gridRect.x, gridRect.y, gridRect.width, gridRect.height);
_rendererPane.paintComponent(g, renderingComponent, _table, cellRect);
private void paintCells(final Graphics g)
Rectangle clipBounds = g.getClipBounds();
Rectangle gridRect = null;
Rectangle cellRect = null;
int offset = 0;
for (int column = 0; column < _table.getColumnCount(); column++)
    for (int row = 0; row < _table.getRowCount(); row++)
      cellRect = _table.getCellRect(row, column, false);
      gridRect = _table.getCellRect(row, column, true);
       if (clipBounds == null || clipBounds.intersects(gridRect))// && column >= _table.getFixedColumnCount())
        this.paintCell(g, row, column, cellRect, gridRect);
        this.paintGrid(g, row, column, gridRect);
for(int column = 0; column < _table.getFixedColumnCount(); column++)
    for(int row = 0; row < _table.getRowCount(); row++)
      offset = ((JViewport)_table.getParent()).getViewPosition().x;
      cellRect = _table.getCellRect(row, column, false);
      gridRect = _table.getCellRect(row, column, true);
      cellRect.translate(offset, 0);
      gridRect.translate(offset, 0);
      //g.setClip(((JViewport)_table.getParent()).getViewRect());
      //clipBounds = g.getClipBounds();
      //if (clipBounds == null || clipBounds.intersects(gridRect))
        this.paintCell(g, row, column, cellRect, gridRect);
        this.paintGrid(g, row, column, gridRect);
private void paintGrid(final Graphics g, final int row, final int column, final Rectangle gridRect)
if (!_table.getShowHorizontalLines() && !_table.getShowVerticalLines())
    return;
g.setColor(_table.getGridColor());
if (_table.getShowHorizontalLines())
    g.drawLine(gridRect.x - 1, gridRect.y - 1, gridRect.x + gridRect.width - 1, gridRect.y - 1);
    g.drawLine(gridRect.x - 1, gridRect.y + gridRect.height - 1, gridRect.x + gridRect.width - 1, gridRect.y + gridRect.height - 1);
if (_table.getShowVerticalLines())
    g.drawLine(gridRect.x - 1, gridRect.y - 1, gridRect.x - 1, gridRect.y + gridRect.height - 1);
    g.drawLine(gridRect.x + gridRect.width - 1, gridRect.y - 1, gridRect.x + gridRect.width - 1, gridRect.y + gridRect.height - 1);
}And the column is only drawn after i click or scroll down and then back up, plus, when i scroll right the standard (non fixed) cells are drawn correctly, but then when I scroll left they are no longer drawn. I am missing something with getting everything to update as I scroll. Also, if I do a System out at the points where I call paintCell, they are getting called.
Any help/ideas you could give me would be great.
Thank you for your time!
Brandon
Edited by: Officialhopsof on Sep 20, 2011 3:14 PM
Edited by: Officialhopsof on Sep 22, 2011 8:54 AM

Yeah, I missed that.
I'm very curious to whether this can be solved by using the g.create(int x, int y, int width, int height) instead of g.create(). When you scroll right, the veiwport moves right, the portion of the new far right column is drawn, and then the fixed column is actually redrawn. It makes me wonder if the graphics you are given to work by the with RepaintManager is always gonna be big enough to go from the upper left corner, coordinate (0,0), to wherever covers the the clip. Like since the clip is on the right, you have a large graphics object that is a copy of the old one with a portion of the left side cut off and a new blank portion allocated on the right. This could explain why everything displays properly when you do the right scroll. This also makes me think that when you scroll left, the viewport is moving left, and a new graphic is allocated just big enough to cover from (0,0) to the edge of what you need to redraw. This leaves you with a small graphics object. This line of thought leads me to think that you might be able to use g.create and maybe if you specify a larger clip area, it will give you a larger graphics object to draw on.
also it might have occurred to you already, but you could do:
if(clipbounds is smaller than the fixed columns && and located on the left edge)
    invalidate
else
    paint
}It would at least be better that always redrawing the whole thing.

.rotation on Video() only works on videos smaller than 5mb. Bug, any workarounds?

UPDATE: Found some reliable reproduction on my end.
Shorter videos tend to rotate just fine, longer videos tend to not rotate but become parallelograms. All on one build. Is there perhaps some metadata tags I need to add to my videos?
UPDATE: Found more reliable repro.
.mp4 files smaller than 5mb have no problem rotating, .mp4 files over 5mb do not rotate, they only skew.
Using standard netstream/netconnection/video setup for streaming video, any mp4 files over 5mb will not rotate when using video.rotation
Videos larger than 5mb skew by the number of degrees you specify, but not rotate.
Videos smaller than 5mb rotate by the number of degrees, and do not skew
100% reproducable on my end: Win 7 x64, Flash Pro CS6 (12.0.2.529), testing on PC and several android devices of varying make/model.
Questions:
-Is this air for android specific?
-Is there a workaround?
-Does this happen on screen rotate too? (It happens when rotating the entire swf, when rotating the parent, and when rotating the parent's parent.)
-Does this happen with older versions of Air for Android, and/or actionscript?
OLD THREAD:
This has been very problematic for me.
When I try to use video.rotation = 90; in code, rather than rotating the video 90 degrees, it disappears. But this only happens sometimes when I publish. I can make zero changes, clear publish cache, and sometimes it is broken like this, sometimes it isn't and works perfectly fine. I can't figure out what is changing to make it compile differently. I've tried in all render modes (publishing to Android, so: Direct, CPU, GPU, Auto) with no changes in this specific behavior.
I've tried putting the video inside of a movieclip, and rotating the movieclip only, and it still occurs.
I've tried directly copy/pasting another successfully rotating item's code to video, same problem still occurs.
I've tried re-ordering it, and putting rotation before and after x/y/w/h changes, removing x/y/w/h changes, same problem.
Restarting my computer usually fixes the problem for 1-2 solid publishes before it starts happening again.
The code is located towards the bottom of this post.
I've tried changing the rotation to 45, and I figured out how the video disappears, but not why. video rotation goes from rotating the whole video, to only moving the right-most points, and creates a parallelogram.
(Height and Width are pre-established variables, with values partaining to the overall container size, which is not always 768*432 ratio)
video.x = Width;
video.y=0;
video.width = Height;
video.height = video.width/768*432;
video.rotation=90;
Please tell me I am just missing something incredibly simple here, and that this is not a bug.

i don't see a problem testing on flash pro cs6 win 7 pro 64bit using an flvplayback component and a 964 MB mp4.

How do I make a high-res picture SMALLER than full screen?

I'm making a credits sequence for a friend's wedding and I'd like to make the pictures smaller than full screen so I can show text at the same time. Is this something I can do in iMovie, or am I going to have to fight with FinalCutPro? I should mention I have an older version of iMovie. Any tips on how to do this in iMovie or FinalCut would be appreciated!

You can use the Picture in Picture feature. See here for details.
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/imovie_09_stone.html#cutaway%20pip
Another way to do it would be to create your Photo in Photoshop or similar app at the size you need over a background. You can then import the JPEG into iMovie.
You can use the Scrolling Titles in iMovie, but you might also consider using Keynote. In this demo, I created text in Keynote. Then I exported as a QuickTime Movie and then used in in iMovie with a Picture in Picture.

How do I play a Keynote 09v5.3 slideshow on my iMac at a size smaller than fullscreen?

How do I play a Keynote09v5.3 slideshow on my iMac at a size smaller than fullscreen?

Hi Gary
Thanks for a conclusive answer.
Regards
Orchardhouse

For some reason all of my forwards, and my printing come out significantly smaller than the original. Any idea how to get this back to printing the size of my screen and forwarding the size of the original mail I've received? Thanks.

Hi. I am not technically proficient. I have somehow hit something that is making my email forwards and text to the printer way smaller than what is appearing on my screen. I have looked into everything I can think of in settings and outlook express. If you have any ideas, I would greatly appreciate them. I assume that one click and I'll be back to "normal", but can't figure out which darned click that would be. Thanks.

Have you checked Outlook's font preferences? You can change to size under General Preferences>Fonts. You can also change font sizes by using ⌘shift+

Error in Schedule agreemenQuantity delivered smaller than quantity ordered.

Dear Guru,
I am facing the following error while deleting item from scheduling agreement (ME32L). Error is "Quantity delivered smaller than quantity ordered."
Kindly help in this matter.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Rajkumar

Hi
Check the scheduling agreement schedule line in ME38 you have already done goods receipt for this line item.
Reverse the goods receipt if you wanna delete the line item in ME32L
Hope it helps
Thanks/Karthik

"Hard drive is smaller than the one originally installed"

Hi,
Recently, a coworker installed several viruses on his 9300 elite running Windows 7 x32. After trying several things and not being able to get rid of them, I ordered the recovery disks from HP. I ran the disks, and everything appeared to work fine until the recovery finished. The PC would restart, act like it was booting into windows (windows splash screen), then go to an HP screen that would say "HP is initializing software install" or something along those lines. It would sit for a minute then give me the error "an unrecoverable error has occurred. please contact system administrator. press enter to reboot".
I thought it might be a problem with the disks, so I ordered replacement disks. Now, as soon as I put in the supplemental disk and click "next", I get the error "hard drive is smaller than one originally installed". No hard drive has ever been replaced on the PC that I know of. I'm not sure how to fix this.

I just got this same message--did you ever get this resolved?

Hello, I have a Mac computer with NVIDIA 750M dedicated graphics card and monitor EIZO but the problem was there when I was working with Windows and Acer monitor. When I open a file from Camera Raw in PS this is smaller than the screen so I double-click w

Hello, I have a Mac computer with NVIDIA 750M dedicated graphics card and monitor EIZO but the problem was there when I was working with Windows and Acer monitor. When I open a file from Camera Raw in PS this is smaller than the screen so I double-click with the tool "hand" to fit on the screen, but the picture loses sharpness and becomes blurry. If you magnify the image even only slightly with the tool "zoom" the picture comes back clear. In Camera Raw instead is always sharp. I solve the problem by turning off the graphics card in PS but often use plugin that need the graphics card otherwise the processing time is much longer. I ask for help.
Thanks.

Hello, I have a Mac computer with NVIDIA 750M dedicated graphics card and monitor EIZO but the problem was there when I was working with Windows and Acer monitor. When I open a file from Camera Raw in PS this is smaller than the screen so I double-click with the tool "hand" to fit on the screen, but the picture loses sharpness and becomes blurry. If you magnify the image even only slightly with the tool "zoom" the picture comes back clear. In Camera Raw instead is always sharp. I solve the problem by turning off the graphics card in PS but often use plugin that need the graphics card otherwise the processing time is much longer. I ask for help.
Thanks.

I updated to 5.0 beta and the page on the screed is smaller than the previous version and I cant get the zoom to work to increase the text and pictures.

the text and pictures is very small or at leat much smaller than in the prior version and the zoom will not make it bigger.

Hi Idreier,
I'd try starting Firefox in [[Safe Mode]]. If you don't have the issue while all of your add-ons, extensions, and themes are disabled, you can try adding them back in one by one until you find the culprit.
Hopefully this helps!

Invoiced quantity is smaller than ordered quantity

HI Everyone,
When i'm doing archiving for the object MM_EKKO.The following message i got "Invoiced quantity is smaller than ordered quantity".
Please can any one tell me how to close this type of purchase orders and continue archiving
Regards
subhash

hi,
It may be due to PO is still open for the given qty...
Firstly check the PO price and qty..then check the IR price and qty it shd match...
You can see the full history in the PO history tab in the PO item details...
And then continue for the archiving...
Hope it helps..
Regards
Priyanka.P

Going smaller than a /64

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for