Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:17 PM, DaeYoung KIM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The /64 host in my scenario in fact now behaves as a router and
> distributes /96 prefixes to internal devices. E2E connections don't
> terminate at the /64 node but at /96 devices.
>
>
> You said that, yes. the host gets a /64. The hosts behind it get a /96
> each. Which means that the hosts behind it have worse connectivity than it
> does, because they can't further extend the network (without NAT).
>
>
> I would' mind that. I'm not a manager of s whole site (of /48 typically),
> and that's neither my interest nor purview.
>
> All I'm interested would be whether I could recursively apply the same
> mechanism of 'Unique-IPv6-Prefix-per-Host' internally to my node (perhaps a
> sophisticated robot or a small IoT island).
>

Ah, I see. If you're asking whether you can use this technique to hand out
a /96 per host, then the answer is no. You can't use this technique because
this technique presumes the use of SLAAC, and SLAAC only works with 64-bit
prefixes (except for addresses in ::/3, which aren't routable on the
Internet).

If you're suggesting that SLAAC be changed to support non-64 bit prefixes,
that topic is out of scope for this document and this working group.

If you're willing to use something other than SLAAC, such as DHCPv6, then
all you need is one /64 for your whole network and you can number as many
devices as you want.