* Martin Pelikan (martin.peli...@gmail.com) wrote: > 2010/9/7, Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com>: > > 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). > > I don't understand that agonizing part. I've heard of companies with > so stupid network policies (read: corporate environment) that DHCP6 > with one /112 per department and sequentially assigned addresses > against people's MAC addresses is like a spit in the ocean. Most > people that would make it scream use some automated system for keeping > track of their machines anyway.
Why use smaller subnets than /64? Just keep it simple and go for /64s everywhere, its even quite common to use /64s on point to point links. The only reason is that net ops are used to IPv4 and try to conserve IP addresses. In the end they will have an unnecessarily complicated network to handle. > > What is wrong with arp? ND does a lot more than ARP. (..which, in itself, makes it more complex.) > > These two things are partially responsible for the failure of IPv6. > > Failure? I don't know about America, but here in central Europe it > finally seems to be deploying well. And wait for China. (yes, I know > it's more like intranet, but they probably don't want to separate too > much) IPv6 is getting more and more attention, in the US too. So after a decade+ of 'IPv6 will happpen soon' it seems like things finaly start to happen.. and it will surely be painfull :) Cheers, /Joakim
