Mark,
>>> Brian Carpenter wrote:
>>> So I am unconditionally against any scheme that
>>> generates prefixes longer than /48.
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Agreed.
> Why? You can just get a additional prefixes if
> you need them. I would prefer it to be the same
> size as what is recommended for PA space but could
> work with a different size.
Administrative nightmare. This one of these things in IPv6 where there
is an explicit trade-off between allocation efficiency and simplicity.
I agree that the 54 subnet bits we have for site-locals today is
overkill, but anything less than 16 subnet bits is not good.
In the case you have both site-local and global at the same time, you
want to maintain subnet numbers:
2001:YOUR:BLOC:BEEF:INTE:RFAC:E_IDE:NTIF
FEC0:0000:0000:BEEF:INTE:RFAC:E_IDE:NTIF
^^^^
Maintain subnet number
Given the room we have in FEC0::/10, I don't see a reason to do
otherwise.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
