On Oct 17, 2005, at 10:39 PM, Paul Jakma wrote:
Wrong issue. What I'm unhappy about is not the size of the
address - you'll notice that I didn't say "make the whole address
space smaller." What I'm unhappy about is the exceedingly sparse
allocation policies
You can allocate to 100% density on the network identifier if you
want, right down to /64.
I believe the complaint isn't about what _can be_ done, rather what
_is being_ done.
The host identifier simply is indivisible, and just happens to be
64bit.
I've always wondered why they made a single "address" field if the
IPv6 architects really wanted a hard separation between the host
identifier and the network identifer. Making the "address" a
contiguous set of bits seems to imply that the components of the
"address" can be variable length.
Rgds,
-drc
