nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)


From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:48:08 +0200

Le 07/06/2012 22:27, Ricky Beam a écrit :
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:58:05 -0400, Chuck Church
<chuckchurch () gmail com> wrote:
Does anyone know the reason /64 was proposed as the size for all L2
 domains?

There is one, and only one, reason for the ::/64 split: SLAAC.  IPv6
is a classless addressing system.  You can make your LAN ::/117 if
you want to; SLAAC will not work there.

SLAAC could work with ::/117 but not on Ethernet and its keen.  There
are many other links than Ethernet and IEEE.

Nothing (no RFC) prohibits SLAAC with something longer than 64, provided
a means to form an Interfac Identifier for that particular link is
provided.  I.e. a new document that specifies e.g. IPv6-over-LTE
(replace LTE with something non-IEEE).

Alex


The reason the requirement is (currently) 64 is to accomodate EUI-64
 hardware addresses -- firewire, bluetooth, fibre channel, etc.
Originally, SLAAC was designed for ethernet and its 48bit hardware
address. (required LAN mask was ::/80.)  The purpose wasn't to put
the whole internet into one LAN.  It was to make address selection
"brainless", esp. for embeded systems with limited memory/cpu/etc...
 they can form an address by simply appending their MAC to the
prefix, and be 99.99999% sure it won't be in use. (i.e. no DAD
required.) However, that was optimizing a problem that never existed
-- existing tiny systems of the day were never destined to have an
IPv6 stack, "modern" IPv6 hardware can select an address and perform
DAD efficiently in well under 1K. (which is noise vs. the size of the
rest of the IPv6 stack.)

SLAAC has been a flawed idea from the first letter... if for no other
 reason than it makes people think "64bit network + 64bit host" --
and that is absolutely wrong. (one cannot make such assumptions about
 networks they do not control. it's even worse when people design
hardware thinking that.)

--Ricky








Current thread: