Re: [v6ops] Implementation Status of PREF64

[Gert Doering <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:25:36AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > So far I have not seen any data that supports "/64 was a good idea" :-)
> 
> It???s working quite well in a number of networks I???ve deployed.
> 
> It???s convenient for EUI-64 addressing.
> 
> Reviewing the record, it seems we were destined for something like 64-bit
> addressing overall before IETF decided to consider EUI-64 addressing and
> added 64-bits to the plan, so one can argue that without the idea of
> universal /64 addressing we???d have a whole lot fewer network numbers
> available.
> 
> So now you have seen data to suggest that /64 was a good idea.
> 
> Do you have any data support your claim that /64 was not?

What part of "yeah, it works for me" makes it a *good* idea?

So did /80s, when they were the latest fashion.

What part of "EUI-64" is a *good* idea, now that everyone is actually
moving away from EUI-64, because it has more undesirable properties than
"oh, yeah, it was there and is convenient"?

Nah.  8+8 was a brilliant idea that did not happen - and nothing else
in a /64 is more than "we can't find consensus to change that".


On the downside:

 - it creates pressure on the number of subnets in reasonably structured
   deployments (think of the number of subnets you can have with a /96
   standard subnet size...)

 - ND exhaustion attacks (which arguably would happen in a /96 just as well)


Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: [phone]         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279