On 5/10/19 2:10 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 01:07:44PM +0200, H.Zuleger wrote:
(The whole reason why /64 semeed a good idea back then was CGA and
"we can make it work with EUI-64 on IEEE-1394 devices!", of which CGA
never truly happened, EUI-64 based on MAC addresses
On Tue, 14 May 2019, WILSON Sam wrote:
Except those nasty security people are now allowing systems to randomise
their MAC addresses. I'm sure some people's Life Goal is to make life
as difficult as possible for us network operators.
That's why one should always create solutions that do not
> On 13 May 2019, at 06:20, Philip Loenneker
> wrote:
>
> To be sure, you could always put your phone system on the same network
> segment too...
>
> Back to the original discussion, it's worth keeping in mind that individual
> devices can and do have multiple IPv6 addresses, so the IPv6
+philip.loenneker=tasmanet.com...@lists.cluenet.de
On Behalf
Of Nick Hilliard
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2019 7:23 AM
To: Gert Doering
Cc: Doug Barton ; ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
Subject: Re: Realistic number of hosts for a /64 subnet?
Gert Doering wrote on 10/05/2019 22:16:
> Just make sure their pho
Gert Doering wrote on 10/05/2019 22:16:
Just make sure their phones are in the same network segment.
No shouting.
Then they'll all start complaining on WhatsApp over the wifi network ...
waait - I see what you're suggesting here. Brilliantly evil.
Nick
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:29:44AM -0700, Joe Hamelin wrote:
> Mark Tinka mentioned:
> >Whether a single LAN can scale to the number of devices a /64 can
> >maximally support... I don't think so, but I also don't know of anyone
> >who has tried.
>
> Since the MAC address space is 48 bits I would
Hi,
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:14:36PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> I'm sure 1000 hosts on a network will usually work fine, until someone
> does something dumb and takes down the entire segment, at which point
> you'll have 1000 people shouting at you.
Just make sure their phones are in the
Doug Barton wrote on 10/05/2019 05:27:
It's been a while since I was configuring subnets, and last time I did
the guidance was always no more than 1,000 hosts per subnet/vlan. A lot
of that was IPv4 thinking regarding broadcast domains, but generally
speaking we kept to it for dual stacked
Mark Tinka mentioned:
>Whether a single LAN can scale to the number of devices a /64 can
>maximally support... I don't think so, but I also don't know of anyone
>who has tried.
Since the MAC address space is 48 bits I would thing that would be the max.
-Joe
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1
> (The whole reason why /64 semeed a good idea back then was CGA and
> "we can make it work with EUI-64 on IEEE-1394 devices!", of which CGA
> never truly happened, EUI-64 based on MAC addresses is dying off, and
> IEEE-1394 is long gone... I always thought that /64 was a bit silly)
Maybe, but
Hi,
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 01:07:44PM +0200, H.Zuleger wrote:
> > (The whole reason why /64 semeed a good idea back then was CGA and
> > "we can make it work with EUI-64 on IEEE-1394 devices!", of which CGA
> > never truly happened, EUI-64 based on MAC addresses is dying off, and
> > IEEE-1394
Hi,
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 08:26:46AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Whether a single LAN can scale to the number of devices a /64 can
> maximally support... I don't think so, but I also don't know of anyone
> who has tried.
Math says there is no way to do that. Like, store 2^63 ND entries
in
> On 10 May 2019, at 06:27, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> It's been a while since I was configuring subnets, and last time I did the
> guidance was always no more than 1,000 hosts per subnet/vlan. A lot of that
> was IPv4 thinking regarding broadcast domains, but generally speaking we kept
> to
> On 10 May 2019, at 07:43, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 May 2019, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> It's been a while since I was configuring subnets, and last time I did the
>> guidance was always no more than 1,000 hosts per subnet/vlan. A lot of that
>> was IPv4 thinking regarding
On Thu, 9 May 2019, Doug Barton wrote:
It's been a while since I was configuring subnets, and last time I did the
guidance was always no more than 1,000 hosts per subnet/vlan. A lot of that
was IPv4 thinking regarding broadcast domains, but generally speaking we kept
to it for dual stacked
On 10/May/19 06:27, Doug Barton wrote:
> It's been a while since I was configuring subnets, and last time I did
> the guidance was always no more than 1,000 hosts per subnet/vlan. A
> lot of that was IPv4 thinking regarding broadcast domains, but
> generally speaking we kept to it for dual
It's been a while since I was configuring subnets, and last time I did
the guidance was always no more than 1,000 hosts per subnet/vlan. A lot
of that was IPv4 thinking regarding broadcast domains, but generally
speaking we kept to it for dual stacked networks, equating an IPv4 /22
with an
17 matches
Mail list logo
