2010/9/6, Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com>: > Only if you plan to use NAT in the near future. /64 is like a /32 in IP. > Not enough in most cases.
Why? You can always use DHCPv6 and split the rank further... I haven't much studied the protocol itself, but in practice the only system that has trouble with it is Linux due to insufficient kernel-userland interaction - passing of autonomous flag in RA to dhcp6 client. That is obviously a design fault and is only a matter of time before it gets straight (whichever way they choose). > A per interface rtadv switch was actually planned. Having it global is > stupid. The problem is that in the ivory tower end user systems only have > one interface and only routers have more then one interface. The reality > is a bit different. How would it look like? New ifconfig parameter? > NAT is a much simpler concept than IPv6. I have to agree with that. But in long term, many companies need better solution than multiple NATs and NAT to multiple addresses under heavy load. So why not rewrite it from scratch (and hope not to make the same mistakes again)... Any particular feature that shows the unnecessary complexity? (no flame, if you want to continue to discuss, I'd be glad off list) -- Martin Pelikan
