On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:23:19AM +0200, Martin Pelikan wrote: > 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).
As soon as you spilt a /64 into something smaler you left IPv6 land end entered something that looks like IPv6 but isn't. Sure it is possible but by doing it you make every IPv6 disciple scream in agony (which is probably a good thing anyway). Sure a /64 is a bit more then a /32 since a /64 represents one single LAN compared to a single address but in the end it is far less then 2^64 IPs. > > > 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? > That was the plan. > > 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)... > In some cases companies could run without the double and tripple NAT but the don't want it. It is a requirement for them. Reality is different then the IPv6 theory and this is slowly recognized. > Any particular feature that shows the unnecessary complexity? (no > flame, if you want to continue to discuss, I'd be glad off list) I think the number 1 question I have about IPv6 is: What is wrong with arp? and maybe as an alternation Why rely so massivly on multicast instead of a simple LAN broadcast? These two things are partially responsible for the failure of IPv6. There is more political nonsense but on the technical side it is the thing that makes IPv6 so stupidly complex. -- :wq Claudio
