this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
6 points (87.5% liked)

IPv6

309 readers
1 users here now

IPv6 Discussions

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
6
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

I'm curious about something so I'm going to throw this thought experiment out here. For some background I run a pure IPv6 network and dove into v6 ignoring any v4 baggage so this is more of a devils advocate question than anything I genuinely believe.

Onto the question, why should I run a /64 subnet and waste all those addresses as opposed to running a /96 or even a /112?

  1. It breaks SLAAC and Android

let's assume I don't care for whatever reason and I'm content with DHCP, maybe android actually supports DHCP in this alternate universe

  1. It breaks RFC3306 aka Unicast-prefix-based multicast groups

No applications I care about are impacted by this breakage

  1. It violates the purity of the spec

I don't care

What advantages does running a /64 provide over smaller subnets? Especially subnets like a /96 where address count still far exceeds usage so filling subnets remains impossible.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

๐Ÿค” I hope you're wrong but also I doubt you are. Ik a lot of people have been making a fuss about Android and DHCP, I do hope Google will stick to their guns on this. I feel like whether they do or not will have a massive impact on the direction v6 goes with subnet sizes in the future. Mostly in business environments which largely haven't deployed v6 yet.