[132305] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Fri Nov 19 16:17:47 2010
In-Reply-To: <4CE6E797.2070505@bogus.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:17:16 -0500
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
> On 11/19/10 12:45 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> The meaningful boundaries in the protocol itself are nibble and /64.
>> If you want socially significant boundaries, add /12, /32 and /48.
>
> It is possible and desirable to be able to describe any mask length
> between /0 and /128. the /64 is an important demarcation point for
> subnets but everything shorter than that will appear in your routing tabl=
e.
Hi Joel,
Bit, nibble and /64 then. /64 is treated specially by functions in the
protocol (like SLAAC) thus it's a protocol boundary rather than a
social one (/12 IANA allocations, /32 ISP allocations, /48 end-user
assignments).
Unless you particularly feel the need to assign /64's to router
loopbacks, you'll see plenty of routes longer than /64 in your table
too.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com=A0 bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
