Hi, On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 01:26:07PM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
My numbering plan requires AS number, router ID and link number in the network part for each point-to-point link.
This is what is flawed, IMHO. You basically say that you want 48 bits out of the address space just to have subnet numbers that look neat.
Yes. (And because it makes maintenance and setup much easier, as I don't have to go to some place to find a "get me a free subnet", I just can have the machine assign it ad-hoc, just by telling it the router name/id and the interface name. We *have* the address space, so I'm certainly going to make use of it. If I want to haggle with people over address bits, I can as well stay in the IPv4 realm.)
If the IPv6 address was 256 bits that would have been possible but not with 128 bits.
Of course it is very much possible with 128 bits. People *do* this, so it's possible, isn't it? The thing that is not possible is to accommodate for that inside the very narrow-minded "one size fits all" mind-set that made the rule that one should use a /64 on a point-to-point link. There is no reason (except "one size fits all") *for* that rule - or at least nobody in this discussion named one - but many good reasons *against* it. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56029 (55671) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299