3 ms·
What if the user only get one address, how to separate the two? Seems like a need to share if a larger block (providor) is handing out based on blocks or single
by punnerud 1y ago
What if the user only get one address, how to separate the two?
Seems like a need to share if a larger block (providor) is handing out based on blocks or single addresses…
- stackskipton 1y agoSay what? IPv6 was designed that first 64 bits are network, last 64 bit are host. Since /64 is smallest network in IPv6 and because of that most providers hand out /64 when you ask for IPv6 public address because A) Most Rate Limiting uses /64 and B) IPv6 has so many IPs, no one cares. Vultr has at least one /32 I was able to find (2001:19F0::/32) which if you cut that into /64 comes out ~4.2 Billion different networks or same amount of IPv4 address that exist. ARIN will hand anyone who asks a /48 IPv6 subnet which 65,536 unique networks and getting larger prefix is not hard.
- growse 1y ago> Since /64 is smallest network in IPv6 A /64 is not the smallest network in IPv6. Nothing stops you having a /112 or a /126 or whatever you like. It is the only network size on which SLAAC works however, so it's a good choice for lan sizes.
- stackskipton 1y agoI'm talking practical. I know you can reduce networks further BUT there is plenty of stuff that could break.
- growse 1y agoWhat stuff?
- stackskipton 1y agoCrappy network devices may not handle it properly, SLAAC obviously, I'm sure there are IPv6 tools that expect /64 for host, almost all blacklist setups for IPv6 assume /64. This RFC has things that may not work properly not to use /64. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7421#section-4.2 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7421#section-4.2
- withinboredom 1y agoThe RFC only mentions issues with a shorter prefix, not a longer one. There should be no issues whatsoever with longer prefixes.
- johncolanduoni 1y agoGCP for example hands out /96s to each VM, so this isn’t a theoretical or niche usecase.
- jsnell 1y agoYes, but for GCP all the VMs with a /96 in the same /64 will be closely related: in the same project, same VPC network, same cloud region. So from the point of abuse logic it's appropriate to treat the whole /64 as a single unit. (That was the starting point of the thread, even though I realize that due to thread drift that's probably not what your comment was about.)