[147034] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Blackman)
Wed Nov 30 18:34:58 2011
From: Mark Blackman <mark@exonetric.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD45i01WZ7zd+bg3NZMkQhx7KSBDzbzGmk75bojSVowsYcQong@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:33:51 +0000
To: Bill Stewart <nonobvious@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 30 Nov 2011, at 23:02, Bill Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Mark Blackman <mark@exonetric.com> wrote:
>> ... and I'm not sure why SLAAC wanted more than 48 bits.
>
> One reason IPv6 addresses are 128 bits long instead of 40, 48, 64 or
> 80 is because converting from IPv4 to IPv6 is really painful and we
> don't want to ever have to do it again in the future.
Sure, 128 bits I can see the point of. Rigid insistence on /64 subnets
when no broadcast domain will ever have 2^64 devices on it seems like
a less obvious choice.
- Mark
