[186481] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Corbe)
Sat Dec 19 11:56:07 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Daniel Corbe <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com>
In-Reply-To: <943962769.2261.1450543395936.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:56:01 -0500
To: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi,
> On Dec 19, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>=20
> "A single /64 has never been enough and it is time to grind that=20
> myth into the ground. ISP's that say a single /64 is enough are=20
> clueless."=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> LLLLOOOOOOLLLLL=20
>=20
>=20
> A 100 gallon fuel tank is fine for most forms of transportation most =
people think of. For some reason we built IPv6 like a fighter jet =
requiring everyone have 10,000 gallon fuel tanks... for what purpose =
remains to be seen, if ever.=20
>=20
>=20
You=E2=80=99re being deliberately flippant.
There are technical reasons why a single /64 is not enough for an end =
user. A lot of it has to do with the way auto configuration works. The =
lower 64 bits of the IP address are essentially host entropy. EUI-64 =
(for example) is a 64 bit number derived from the mac address of the =
NIC.
The requirement for the host portion of the address to be 64 bits long =
isn=E2=80=99t likely to change. Which means a /64 is the smallest =
possible prefix that can be assigned to an end user and it limits said =
end user to a single subnet.
Handing out a /56 or a /48 allows the customer premise equipment to have =
multiple networks behind it. It=E2=80=99s a good practice and there=E2=80=
=99s certainly enough address space available to support it.
