Read about EUI-64 that is now legacy, you will understand why. Le mer. 15 mai 2024, à 08 h 49, Adam Thompson <athomp...@merlin.mb.ca> a écrit :
> Understood, yes, but I should have been more clear: I'm talking about > statically allocating my own internal /64s out of the /56 I've reserved for > my org's own use. Is there any point in using a more complex scheme than > just "next!" ? > -Adam > > Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> > ------------------------------ > *From:* Nicolas VUILLERMET <nico...@vuillermet.bzh> > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2024 7:31:31 AM > *To:* Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org>; Adam Thompson <athomp...@merlin.mb.ca > > > *Cc:* nanog <nanog@nanog.org> > *Subject:* Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? > > > Hello, > > The minimum addressable on a LAN is a /64. So you have to provide the > customer with a larger subnet. > > Public operators in France generally deliver a /60. > > The RFC gives /56, however, as customers are mobile and there is a risk of > disaggregating into PAs (or rather allowing the customer to keep his IPs, > such as DID portability), we, as operators, supply /48s directly. > > Talking about the number of IPs that can be assigned in IPv6 shows a lack > of understanding of IPv6. It's time to get trained! > > My 2 cents, > > Nicolas VUILLERMET > Network Engineer... and IPv6 ready. > On 14/05/2024 22:12, Mel Beckman wrote: > > I never could understand the motivation behind RFC3531. Just assign /64s. A > single /64 subnet has 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 host addresses. It is > enough. Period. > > > -mel > > On May 14, 2024, at 12:54 PM, Adam Thompson <athomp...@merlin.mb.ca> > <athomp...@merlin.mb.ca> wrote: > > > > Not an IPv6 newbie by any stretch, but we still aren’t doing it “at scale” > and some of you are, so… > > > > For a very small & dense (on 128-bit scales, anyway) network, is RFC3531 > still the last word in IPv6 allocation strategies? > > > > Right now, we’re just approaching it as “pick the next /64 in the range”, > as it all gets aggregated at the BGP border anyway, and internally if I > really try hard, I might get to 200 subnets someday. > > > > Is there any justification for the labour in doing something more complex > like center-allocation in my situation? Worrying about allocation > strategies seems appropriate to me if you have 100,000 subnets, not 100. > > > > Opinions wanted, please. > > -Adam > > > > *Adam Thompson* > > Consultant, Infrastructure Services > > MERLIN > > 100 - 135 Innovation Drive > > Winnipeg, MB R3T 6A8 > > (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) > > https://www.merlin.mb.ca > > Chat with me on Teams > <https://teams.microsoft.com/l/chat/0/0?users=athomp...@merlin.mb.ca> > > > >
