Hello Alexey,

On Monday January 10 2022 19:12, you wrote to me:

 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....


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303