3 ms·
> 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 o
by 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.)