> Are you aware that EUI64 is only one way to generate the addresses and that > the 64 bits can be randomly filled or be static? Do you mean that random garbage (for privacy) did return 2% resources to the Internet? These 16 bytes (8 for source and 8 for destination) are still used not for IP addressing. Does it matter for what it is used, if it is not IP addressing? IPv6 is 64+bit architecture (a few bits are used inside subnet)
> If you want NAT really hard, you can use it with IPv6 too. fd00::/8 exist. Then it is better to use NTP. But IETF makes everything possible to block it too. Anyway, if NAT (in any form) is blocked then there is no practical solution for ISP redundancy: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fbnvv-v6ops-site-multihoming-03 Read it to understand what the mess is going there - it is really complicated. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: Marco Moock via NANOG <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 14:17 To: [email protected] Cc: Marco Moock <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment (and sales) Am 05.11.2025 um 11:00:13 Uhr schrieb Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG: > Multi-prefix, SP address delegation through the site, absence of NAT. If you want NAT really hard, you can use it with IPv6 too. fd00::/8 exist. > Many things. Try to organize the primary and redundant connection to > the SP (that is needed for every business). A connection with 2 prefixes (or even 2 IPv4 addresses) via 2 ISPs is never redundant, unless you set it up this way with both ISPs cooperating. If you really want redundancy, you have to get your own ASN and route it via 2 independent ISPs. Or let 2 ISPs route your network ranges. In all other cases with NAT and 2 IPv4 addresses, connections will be lost when one of the connections fail, as the remote system won't accept the packages from a different address unless a new connection is being established. > The fact that every subnet is /64 is convenient. Just if has a payment > 16/750=2% of the overall Internet capacity (750B is the average packet > size). The decision to violate OSI model and put MAC address inside IP > address was very questionable. Are you aware that EUI64 is only one way to generate the addresses and that the 64 bits can be randomly filled or be static? -- Gruß Marco Send unsolicited bulk mail to [email protected] _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/AZQEDJI4LXVJWMTLI3RRCRXJAOU3MLF6/
