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:
- Re: ipv6 book recommendations?, (continued)
- Re: ipv6 book recommendations? Anton Smith (Jun 06)
- IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Jean-Francois . TremblayING (Jun 06)
- RE: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Chuck Church (Jun 06)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Dale W. Carder (Jun 06)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Owen DeLong (Jun 06)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Steve Clark (Jun 06)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Owen DeLong (Jun 06)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Masataka Ohta (Jun 06)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Ricky Beam (Jun 07)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Owen DeLong (Jun 07)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Alexandru Petrescu (Jun 19)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Alexandru Petrescu (Jun 19)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Owen DeLong (Jun 19)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Karl Auer (Jun 06)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Ricky Beam (Jun 07)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Dave Hart (Jun 07)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Karl Auer (Jun 07)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Dave Hart (Jun 07)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Karl Auer (Jun 07)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Mark Andrews (Jun 07)
- Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?) Karl Auer (Jun 07)