[117928] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP customer assignments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin Loch)
Tue Oct 6 12:12:45 2009
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:12:05 -0400
From: Kevin Loch <kloch@kl.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <D193309C-E028-46C2-A1D4-FAC3D2381929@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen DeLong wrote:
> Part of the reason that 128 bits was chosen (64 bits is FAR more than
> enough) was that it allowed for 64 bits of stateless auto-configuration
> (IEEE was already pushing EUI-64) within each network and still
> provided more than enough network numbers.
I'm sure the Really Smart People over at the IETF could have figured
out a way to do auto configuration with "just" 16 bits of /112 (or
a /48 of 64 bit space).
It will be interesting to see if things evolve to using /112's anyway
just to escape auto configuration. I use them for router links and
server subnets because it's a convenient boundary for notation.
- Kevin
