North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 daydreams

  • From: David Conrad
  • Date: Tue Oct 18 11:17:57 2005 
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