<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 11:53 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:flavio-cluenet@zipman.it" target="_blank">flavio-cluenet@zipman.it</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">I think it's really different. Having more services or more customers on</span><br>
</div>
a single IPv4 address is a "workaround" to eliminate the need of<br>
multiple (now rare) addresses, while more customers on a /64, each one<br>
with it's own IPv6, is common and can even be considered a "best practice".<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think you'll find that many reputation systems work on a per-/64 basis. This is because:</div>
<div><br></div><div>1. In residential networks, a user has more than a /64.</div><div>2. Due to the way SLAAC works, having multiple clients share the same /64 without being able to assume each other's IPv6 addresses is non-trivial. So one client on a /64 is often able to assume any address on that /64.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In a server environment where you control the OS and networking of course you can give individual users one /128 each, but why would you want to do this? Why not give each user a /64 so they can use all the addresses they want?</div>
</div></div></div>