Subject: Re: [vserver] Re: Linux source address selection vs. EUI-64
From: Ed W <lists@wildgooses.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:40:59 +0000

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