Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?

[Michel Blais <Michel () targointernet com>]

Read about EUI-64 that is now legacy, you will understand why.

Le mer. 15 mai 2024, à 08 h 49, Adam Thompson <athompson () merlin mb ca> a
écrit :

> Understood, yes, but I should have been more clear: I'm talking about
> statically allocating my own internal /64s out of the /56 I've reserved for
> my org's own use.  Is there any point in using a more complex scheme than
> just "next!" ?
> -Adam
>
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Nicolas VUILLERMET <nicolas () vuillermet bzh>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2024 7:31:31 AM
> *To:* Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org>; Adam Thompson <athompson () merlin mb ca
> >
> *Cc:* nanog <nanog () nanog org>
> *Subject:* Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?
>
>
> Hello,
>
> The minimum addressable on a LAN is a /64. So you have to provide the
> customer with a larger subnet.
>
> Public operators in France generally deliver a /60.
>
> The RFC gives /56, however, as customers are mobile and there is a risk of
> disaggregating into PAs (or rather allowing the customer to keep his IPs,
> such as DID portability), we, as operators, supply /48s directly.
>
> Talking about the number of IPs that can be assigned in IPv6 shows a lack
> of understanding of IPv6. It's time to get trained!
>
> My 2 cents,
>
> Nicolas VUILLERMET
> Network Engineer... and IPv6 ready.
> On 14/05/2024 22:12, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> I never could understand the motivation behind RFC3531. Just assign /64s. A
> single /64 subnet has 18,446,744,073,709,551,616  host addresses.  It is
> enough. Period.
>
>
>  -mel
>
> On May 14, 2024, at 12:54 PM, Adam Thompson <athompson () merlin mb ca>
> <athompson () merlin mb ca> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Not an IPv6 newbie by any stretch, but we still aren’t doing it “at scale”
> and some of you are, so…
>
>
>
> For a very small & dense (on 128-bit scales, anyway) network, is RFC3531
> still the last word in IPv6 allocation strategies?
>
>
>
> Right now, we’re just approaching it as “pick the next /64 in the range”,
> as it all gets aggregated at the BGP border anyway, and internally if I
> really try hard, I might get to 200 subnets someday.
>
>
>
> Is there any justification for the labour in doing something more complex
> like center-allocation in my situation?  Worrying about allocation
> strategies seems appropriate to me if you have 100,000 subnets, not 100.
>
>
>
> Opinions wanted, please.
>
> -Adam
>
>
>
> *Adam Thompson*
>
> Consultant, Infrastructure Services
>
> MERLIN
>
> 100 - 135 Innovation Drive
>
> Winnipeg, MB R3T 6A8
>
> (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
>
> https://www.merlin.mb.ca
>
> Chat with me on Teams
> <https://teams.microsoft.com/l/chat/0/0?users=athompson () merlin mb ca>