[85855] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 daydreams
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Tue Oct 18 11:15:46 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0510180637080.3396@sheen.jakma.org>
Cc: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>, nanog@merit.edu
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:11:29 -0700
To: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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
