Keith, Brian, At 02:06 AM 12/11/2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
For the record, I am still completely against any proposal that takes over the normal 16 bit subnet field, i.e. generates a prefix longer than /48. It just isn't operationally convenient.
At 04:12 PM 12/11/2002, Keith Moore wrote:
Ignoring the area field (that I am starting to think was a mistake) for a minute, the idea in the draft is that one could have site-local prefixes that are independent from the global prefixes and would not have to be renumbered. Because they are globally unique they would survive site joining and/or splitting, change of ISP, change of topology, etc. There were not intended to be used in the same manner as the global prefixes that have a 16-bit subnet field.> I'm still unsure about this insistence on /48 as a critical point of > allocation.renumbering is a lot more painful if you're trying to renumber between prefixes of different lengths.
The cost for this flexibility was that they had to be flat routed in the site. I think that is a good tradeoff, but opinions will vary.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
