[114221] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Mon May 4 17:43:21 2009
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 17:43:13 -0400
To: "Bill Stewart" <nonobvious@gmail.com>
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <18a5e7cb0905041403q47b78c1cvaba1452c6e6e4f0@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart <nonobvious@gmail.com>
wrote:
> When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
> so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
> but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
> Does anybody know why anybody thought it was a good idea
> to put the extra bits in the middle, or for IPv6 to adopt them?
"64bit MAC" -- which pretty much exists nowhere. It's a repeat of the
mistakes from IPv4's early days: CLASSFUL ROUTING.
I'm with you. I wish vendors and spec designers would just get over it
and let people subnet however they want. If I want to set a network to be
/96 or /120, I should be allowed to do so. Yes, I know autoconfig will
not work -- and I don't want it to. I can make /31 IPv4 routes -- no
router I've ever used complained about it. (that sends 2 addresses to one
place; what happens in the place is not the router's concern.)
