MvdV>> It is not that 2^64 addresses are not enough for all my MvdV>> devices, it is that a /64 can not be divided into subnets.
AV> [Top-secret, burn before reading!]
Done. But thanks to the Fidoweb, I have a copy. ;-)
AV> And on my early experiments, when the /64 was the only block I had, AV> that was really great.
Yes, now that you mention it, I remember yuo experimenting with dividing a /64 into 32 bit subnets.
MvdV>> That is the way it is designed. A /64 is the smallest subnet.
AV> No. The /64 is the default subnet size, and people normally SHOULD NOT AV> (as in FTA-1006) split these blocks further, but that IS possible and AV> NOT prohibited.
OK, so I stand corrected, it is possible.
But many things won't work any more. SLAAC comes to mind.
So one /should/ avoid it.
At first glance one would say: a /64? what a waste! But keep in mind that "waste" is only a problem when there is a shortage. "Waste and shortage" is IPv4 think.
MvdV>> So... if one wants/needs more than one subnet, one needs more MvdV>> than one /64. That is the way it is. It should be no problem, MvdV>> there is enough for everyone.
AV> Here in Russia the de-facto standard is one MAC-based IPv6 address for AV> the outer-side link and /64 subnet routed via that address to the AV> customer's LAN. Additional subnets may be requested as well, but ISP AV> admins say most people don't request them.
So most people in Russia do not need more than one subnet....
