Exactly. I agree we should not block the possibility for the future. However, I don't agree we should block the current requirements to make the way for the uncertainties of future. We should first serve the needs today, then we the better current network will become a better fundamental for our future.
Cheers, Sheng On 3 June 2013 20:27, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes. A fine engineering solution for demonstration purposes, but not a > good solution for us to recommend for deployment in the long term. > Because it commits wide prefixes to sub-delegations, it wastes address > space profligately, and likely would require a /48 for a fairly trivial > subnetted homenet. > > You say that as if it would be a bad thing. > I don't see a problem with it. > > > IIRC, what started this conversation was the claim that wasting bits on > semantic identifiers was bad because it wasted address space. If you > don't think wasting address space is a problem, why are we even having this > debate? > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > -- Sheng Jiang 蒋胜
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
