nanog mailing list archives
Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
From: Jonathan Lassoff <jof () thejof com>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:39:32 +0000
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Glen Kent <glen.kent () gmail com> wrote:
SLAAC only works with /64 - yes - but only if it runs on Ethernet-like Interface ID's of 64bit length (RFC2464).Ok, the last 64 bits of the 128 bit address identifies an Interface ID which is uniquely derived from the 48bit MAC address (which exists only in ethernet).SLAAC could work ok with /65 on non-Ethernet media, like a point-to-point link whose Interface ID's length be negotiated during the setup phase.If we can do this for a p2p link, then why cant the same be done for an ethernet link?
I think by "point-to-point", Alexandru was referring to PPP-signalled links. In the case of Ethernet and SLAAC, the standards define a way to turn a globally unique 48-bit 802.3 MAC-48 address into an EUI-64 identifier by flipping and adding some bits. This uniquely maps conventional MAC-48 addresses into EUI-64 addresses. I imagine this was chosen because the IEEE is encouraging new standards and numbering schemes to use the 64-bit schemes over the older 48-bit ones. Presumably to avoid exhaustion in the future (like we're seeing with IPv4). The result of which is that with the standards we've got today, we can easily map a piece of hardware's globally unique MAC address into a globally unique 64-bit identifier -- which happens to cleanly fit into the second half of the v6 address space. I suppose one could make an argument to use /80 networks and just use the MAC-48 identifier for the address portion, but given the vastness of v6 space I don't think it's really worth the extra savings of bit space. So, to address your original question, in v6 networks with netmask lengths greater than 64 bits nothing "breaks" per se, but some of the conventional standards and ideas about what a "network" is in that context are broken. While it's not possible to have hosts uniquely pick addresses for themselves, one can use other addressing mechanisms like DHCPv6 or static addresses. --j
Current thread:
- subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 23)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 23)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Karl Auer (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Alexandru Petrescu (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Jonathan Lassoff (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 23)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Sven Olaf Kamphuis (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 26)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Joel Maslak (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Chuck Anderson (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 25)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 25)