1f06, 1f07
This is one of those "aww poop" moments. Seriously, I looked at that and looked at that and just didn't see it. I sat there dumbfounded as to why the LAN address was the same as the link, seriously. As is obvious from my earlier, which I will leave as an object lesson in silliness.
I bow to the gods of Cut and Paste, which is the only reason it worked at all.
You didn't have to use ::3, ::1 would have worked fine, since it's a different network address.
Yeah, like I said, right there with ya. Lots of excuses, only one reason: I just didn't see it.
In a firefight, I'd be dead.
This is not even close to the first time this has happened. A
lot of people got caught out by this, including myself! When I first set up my tunnel, I "missed" the routed /64, and in my haste figured that they only gave you the /64 for the tunnel, and requested a /48 for my LAN. Only later did I realize that the two addresses were
not the same and go "doh!" like Homer Simpson.

The main reason for the confusion is that that tunnel and routed /64 pair are only different by a single character in the 3rd quad, the tunnel being even and the routed being odd. This makes it hard to spot. I even
annoyed (likely) kcochran into doing something to make the differences more apparent on the web page, and he bolded the 3rd quad. But obviously it still catches people out. Maybe it's because from IPv4 we're used to looking at the trailing bytes of the address for subnets? Although that's not true of a /24, which matches up with a IPv6 /48 well as far as "positional aspects" (both change in the 3rd section of the address). Who knows. I should ask my human factors engineering psychology friend perhaps.

The HE address plan for the TB stuff seems to be to reserve one /47 per tunnel server, giving two consecutive /48s for the tunnel and routed /64 networks assigned to each user. It
could actually be shorter prefixes but I haven't seen enough address/router associations to guess this.
But my guess is one /47 per tunnel server, allowing them to provision 65,536 tunnels per server (which is probably more than one can handle). The fourth quad is always the same per tunnel for the tunnel/routed /64, and is treated as the "local tunnel ID" (if you convert the hex to decimal, you'll see it matches the "local tunnel ID" on the info page for your tunnel). This is why the addresses look like they do.
With this scheme, they can advertise one /47 per tunnel server into their routing protocols, and it also makes the route table on each server easy to interpret. They can easily tell the tunnel /64 from the routed /64 based on even/odd, and identify each user's networks based on the 4th quad (local tunnel ID). (correct me if I'm wrong about any of this HE)
Anyway, this is why the addresses presented to the user for their two networks are only different by one character!
Coming from the IPv4 "desert", where extreme conservation strategies are the norm and desirable, it's hard to transition your thinking to the IPv6 mode, where address space is so abundant we don't have to worry about running out of space.
While I agree as things are, things will not always be this way. Interstate highways have traffic jams, OC3 circuits get filled, 16MB Token Ring seemed fast. It happens, it will happen.
Ok, a /126 is completely absurd. 
I am reminded of John D. Rockefeller, who lived in a single rented room with little more than a nightstand and a bed, to the end of his days. But then, not spending what he didn't need to was how he got rich in the first place.
True, nothing is for forever, but by the time we need more, we'll probably be on IPv10 which will address special requirements for quantum entanglement ansibles and FTL communication or something.

Realize this isn't the entire IPv6 space, just the current 2000::/3 which is what that ICANN has currently assigned for global unicast IPv6. There are a bunch of other like sized ranges reserved which can be rolled out later, perhaps with different address plan standards.
Or different planets.
So don't worry about waste. I've been admonished about this myself and told it was "IPv4 thinking."
Shows where I cut my teeth, certainly.
Thanks for the pointers, and for not laughing too hard.
Heh yeh. But at the rate we're going with space exploration (compare the movie "2010" with "reality 2010" :lol: ) we'll probably be using "IPv10" or something (as I joked earlier) by the time we're on different planets.

I certainly wasn't laughing, since I (and a bunch of others) were also caught out by this, and I've been a sys/net admin since 1988.
