nanog mailing list archives
Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?
From: Willy Manga <willym () manbene net>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 19:38:08 +0400
. On 15/05/2024 16:00, nanog-request () nanog org wrote:
Message: 11 Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 20:12:31 +0000 From: Mel Beckman<mel () beckman org> To: Adam Thompson<athompson () merlin mb ca> Cc: nanog<nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Message-ID:<813ADB68-4F73-49CC-AB3F-9BE18707497D () beckman org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 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.
With IPv6 when you think of assignment to end-user, it's better to think in terms of 'use case' rather than number of hosts within a single network.
As a residential user I might have wifi, voip, TV, CCTV,,... each of them can use its own prefix.
As a bare metal user in a datacenter , I might have different needs when I build any internal networks.
As a corporate user, I think this one is the more obvious. The only end-user who might stick with a single /64 is - 1 smartphone - 1 VM -- Willy Manga
Current thread:
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?, (continued)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Nicolas VUILLERMET (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Adam Thompson (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Michel Blais (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? William Herrin (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Nicolas VUILLERMET (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Jay Acuna (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Mel Beckman (May 15)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? William Herrin (May 16)
- Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Mel Beckman (May 16)