[135493] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jan 26 00:18:52 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC13603@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:17:18 -0800
To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 25, 2011, at 8:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>> From: Adrian Chadd
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 8:37 PM
>> To: Owen DeLong
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
>>
>> (Top-posting because the whole message is context. Oh, and I'm lazy.)
>>
>> I do indeed love it when people break out IPv6 addressing as
>> "there's so many addresses, we'll never ever go through them!"
>>
>> Sure, if they're only used as end-point identifiers.
>>
>
> Yeah, at some point v6 IP addresses might be used for something
> completely different. For example, rather than using a cookie to
> balance through a load balancer to get back to a server in a "sticky
> session", maybe you are redirected directly to an IP address on the
> server that represents your session. The IP address could be
> provisioned dynamically on the server as required, the user hits the
> main URL and is "redirected" to the unique IP address representing their
> session.
>
There isn't a web farm big enough for that not to still work within a /64.
Since a web farm network would be a /64 anyway, this isn't an increase
in the consumption of IPv6 addresses.
> If you have a 64-bit address, each active session can easily be given
> its own unique IP. I can see requirements at some point for servers to
> be able to handle thousands of IP addresses per interface.
>
Many already can.
Owen
