North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: IPv6 daydreams
On Oct 17, 2005, at 10:39 PM, Paul Jakma wrote:
I believe the complaint isn't about what _can be_ done, rather what _is being_ done.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 policiesYou can allocate to 100% density on the network identifier if you want, right down to /64.
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.