Subject: Re: Linux source address selection vs. EUI-64
From: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:42:16 +0100


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 how a /96 for each customer would be more than enough
(especially that since hundreds of customers are going to share
the same MAC, due to the low-overhead virtualization technology
used). 

Presumably, in above context it would be a sane thing to parcel 
the /56 into /64, each for one physical server's distinct NIC 
MAC, and from each /64 a /96 for each virtual server?


-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="leitlhttp://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="leitlhttp://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE