Realistic number of hosts for a /64 subnet?

Yannis Nikolopoulos dez at
Tue May 14 12:32:41 CEST 2019

On 5/10/19 2:10 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 01:07:44PM +0200, H.Zuleger wrote:
>>> (The whole reason why /64 semeed a good idea back then was CGA and
>>> "we can make it work with EUI-64 on IEEE-1394 devices!", of which CGA
>>> never truly happened, EUI-64 based on MAC addresses is dying off, and
>>> IEEE-1394 is long gone...  I always thought that /64 was a bit silly)
>> Maybe, but this large address space, give you the room for all these ideas (and a lot more like 8+8 etc.).
>> I think the great benefit and the main driver was (and is) the full automated address configuration.
> I've heard lots of "great ideas" in the last 20 years...
> What is left:
>   - large networks are hard
>   - can we please do p2p instead, routed, wherever possible
>   - autoconfig based on hardware identifiers sucks, can we please do
>     something hash-based (= autoconf in a /96 would quite likely work
>     perfectly fine)
>   - we do not have enough bits *in front* of the /64 mark to do nice things

This! Or maybe rewrite it to " do a lot of nice things"

> Gert Doering
>          -- NetMaster

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list