On 9/27/2013 9:36 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Friday, September 27, 2013 03:27:12 PM Eugen Leitl wrote:
All the IPv6 guys I asked said to never do that.
The beauty is - your network, your rules :-).
I can see when I would use a much smaller subnet
e.g. for building a tunnel or CARP, but that's a very
special case.
/128's for Loopback, and /126's (and recently, /127's) for
point-to-point.
While /64 per LAN segment is wasteful ( /80 or even /96
for end users might have been enough), we're stuck with
it for a long while.
I don't dispute that - if you certainly want the benefits of
SLAAC, you will have no other option other than /64; and
since DHCPv6 doesn't support passing of the Router option,
you end up having to use both SLAAC and DHCPv6 together.
Mark.
I'm somewhat new to ipv6, but looking at the insane amount of IPv6
address's in a /64. What is the recommend number of hosts to actually
assign to that subnet. If i could somehow assign all the Ipv6 address's
in a /64 to hosts, I have doubts the network would be happy.
Adam
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
