Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:56:23 -0600
From: Brad Huntting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| IMHO, the problem lies with using /64 for the default subnet size;
There is no real "problem". No-one who has ever actually looked
at the numbers believes there is a problem with /48 allocations to
sites (though I personally have no problem considering a pool of
dial in users to be a single site if they have no need for more than
a /64 each).
The "we have to conserve those 2^48 numbers" comes from the same
kind of philosophy as the people who bought a 2 bedroom house, then
had 3 kids, and all of them had to share a bedroom. That was a
problem, so then they bought a 500 room hotel - but still made the
kids share a room, because they ran out before, and they were
going to make certain that would never happen again.
| /80 would probably be more than enough for any conceivable "layer
| 2" protocol.
Except that IEEE has created 64 bit MAC identifiers for use by its
new protocols, and /80 would kill easy autoconf. For sure, /80
(even /96) leaves way too many addresses for any conceivable subnet
to ever use them all - but making things fit in less is more work
that it is worth.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
