I know that on my hosted server, I never bothered to set it up, because I didn't know how to properly configure or sub-net it. I know it's skill issue, but really feels significantly more complicated and even harder to understand than NAT even.

Not to mention, at home, most of the ads I do see (PiHole) are IPv6 addresses.

▲

DrewADesign 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It seems to have absolutely terrible ergonomics as a technology, in nearly every conceivable way.

	▲	inigyou an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's literally impossible to avoid long addresses being long or short addresses running out. One of those is a worse problem.

▲

unethical_ban an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

No network is "smaller" than /64. All end-networks are /64.

Split subnets at four bit chunks.

Allocated networks, like to a home or small office, should be /56 or /60.

Then you have to think about link-local addresses and privacy addresses, and how to hand out IPv6 and configure DNS: SLAAC vs. DHCPv6 or some combination.

I have a rough draft of a beginner document but it's not ready. :)

▲

zrail an hour ago | parent [-]

(Pedantically) Maximum prefix length of /64 is only required if you want/need SLAAC. If you're assigning static addresses or using DHCPv6 for assignment you can go as small as you want. It's not weird to see /127 for tunnel subnets, for example.

	▲	unethical_ban an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't want to encourage non-standard behavior, but you are correct. Tunnels are a common use the same way /31s can be used in IPv4. Going smaller than /64 is against best practice and unnecessary. People coming from IPv4 need to understand that trying to be careful with subnet sizing for purposes of preserving space is not a thing in IPv6 below /64. Maybe if a residential user has a /64 from their crappy ISP settings they'd need to do it, but not in a properly configured scenario and certainly not in enterprise.