Hi Stephen,
> *gigglefit*
>
> One of my providers gave me a single(!) IPv6 address.
Actually that's at least something the IETF has thought of ... if it is certain that one and only one device will be connected. I'm not actually sure what use case there is for such a connection, but at least it is a possibility mentioned in RFC 3177:
This document provides recommendations to the addressing registries
(APNIC, ARIN and RIPE-NCC) on policies for assigning IPv6 address
blocks to end sites. In particular, it recommends the assignment of
/48 in the general case, /64 when it is known that one and only one
subnet is needed and /128 when it is absolutely known that one and
only one device is connecting.
> Another one has subdivided a /64 into multiple /96's (one for each customer).
Yuck. That doesn't make sense at all.
SLAAC won't work, Privacy Extensions won't work ... you're stuck with static addresses that way, which kills a big part of the ease of management IPv6 could provide, if used properly.
What are they trying to do? Save IPv6 address space? :-)
OK, 3177 is just a recommendation, but when you look at the schemes after which SLAAC und PE addresses are generated, anything less than /64 (except, in rare circumstances, /128) is just bull****.
> You might want to rethink the /64 concept!
I think you might want to rethink the choice of your provider.
Bests,
Peter.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
