> >>> Keith Moore wrote: > >>> By allowing sites to subnet /64s we aren't forcing them to give up > >>> autoconfig, private addresses, etc... > > >> Michel Py wrote: > >> Would you educate me on how you do autoconfig, let's say, on a /85 ? > > > Keith Moore wrote: > > you don't. a site that chooses to subnet below /64 is inherently > > choosing not to use stateless autoconfig. but this is a choice for > > that site to make, not for us to make on that site's behalf. > > This is direct contradiction with what you wrote before.
no it's not. > > you still haven't given a single argument in favor of not allowing > > sites to subnet below /64. > > Yes, I have. And you haven't yet given a single good reason why a site > should subnet below /64, when a site should, indeed, use the SLA bits > (means SITE LEVEL AGGREGATOR) which have been designed for that very > purpose. A site should subnet below /64 if - for any reason - it doesn't have enough subnet bits above /64 and - for whatever reason - it can't get more address space by other means. Perhaps this will only happen if we fail to allocate prefixes efficiently, and/or if ISPs don't follow our recommendations. But if either of those does occur, it will make perfect sense to subnet below /64 - and it's certainly a lot saner than NAT. On the other hand, expecting that everything will go exactly as we've anticipated - when we don't even agree about how things will go - is utterly insane. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
