Re: [vserver] Re: Linux source address selection vs. EUI-64

From: Ed W <lists_at_wildgooses.com>
Date: Sat 13 Nov 2010 - 22:40:59 GMT
Message-ID: <4CDF13FB.8080100@wildgooses.com>

On 13/11/2010 15:42, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> I figured this should go here as well.
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Eugen Leitl<eugen@leitl.org> -----
>
> From: Eugen Leitl<eugen@leitl.org>
> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:32:25 +0100
> To: ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
> Subject: Re: Linux source address selection vs. EUI-64
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
>
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 03:36:57PM +0100, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
>
>> For individual hosts (esp. in a VPS environment), assigning a /64 or
>> larger makes little sense to me, a /96 is more than enough.
> Is that an official recommendation? I currently have a single /56,
> which I would like to distribute over several thousands customers,
> each on a virtual server, with currently one static IPv4 address.

I can see IPV6 turning into another IPv4 style farce due to those in the
know handing out very large allocations. The logic seems to be that
routers today can handle at most something like /24 routing, so allocate
large sub allocations to avoid routing problems exploding... Seems like
the wrong design decision though..?

Who knows, a /56 is a BIG space, yet if we start handing out /56 space
to light switches then perhaps we are back at square one?

Ed W
Received on Sat Nov 13 22:41:57 2010

[Next/Previous Months] [Main vserver Project Homepage] [Howto Subscribe/Unsubscribe] [Paul Sladen's vserver stuff]
Generated on Sat 13 Nov 2010 - 22:41:58 GMT by hypermail 2.1.8