On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:15:57 +0200 (CEST) Mattias Webjörn Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Otherwise, I conclude that IPv6 is classfull, having two classes: > namely /64 and /128 (routing, though is classless). > I don't think classful is the right way to express this. "classful" is a loaded word from the IPv4 days, as it defines both an addressing allocation method and a _forwarding_ algorithm. I think some of the criticism of the /48 boundary has been based on misunderstanding what classful addressing was also classful forwarding. The /48, /64, /128 etc. boundaries in IPv6 are soft boundaries rather than hard ones, and pretty much there primarily for operational and administrative convenience. For example, the /64 boundary is basically there so that an EUI-64 address can be used to generate a semi-permanent and convenient node address (and also from what I understand, to allow for routing goop, although we're never going to "goop"). > I still think this is ambiguous (rfc:s might not be, but my interpretation > however is). To an extent I agree. I think if you look at from a slightly more operational view point, rather than a technical / protocol one, the convenience and simplicity of having fixed addressing boundaries makes more sense. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
