Nevertheless, it is not architecturally forbidden to subnet at /124 if you really want to - but doing so at /48 is more likely to be supported by all products. If I was an implementor, I certainly wouldn't worry if a /124 prefix kicked me onto a slow path, as long as prefixes from /3 to /64 were handled optimally.
Brian Michel Py wrote: > > > JJ Behrens wrote: > > Please forgive me for being a newbie, but it seems wise to > > allow subnetting of the lower 64 bits. Afterall, it would > > be terrible if my dialup ISP assigned a /64 to me, and I > > had to rely on some IPv6 mythical NAT to do subnetting! > > I don't think this will happen. IPv6 ISPs currently assign > /48 prefixes (see www.freenet6.net for example) which gives > you 65536 subnets to play. Besides, doing subnets on a dial-up > connection looks rather overkill to me. > > Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
