Hi, On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:06:28AM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
available for that. What Gert wants is a large number of bits to make the subnet number look good, in the *subnet* bits,
Call it "look good", but at least you understand the goal. I appreciate that.
totally ignoring conservation. Where does this come from?
It comes from people wanting to use the freedom that the large address space could give them.
Nobody does that except him, nobody does it in v4,
In v4, you just don't have the address space to do useful things that can only be done by sparsely populating the space. In v6, you can. (And I want to point out very strongly that it's not "nobody does that except him". At least four people have voiced here that they are doing this, and I'm pretty sure that many more networks are doing non-/64s on point-to-point links for similar or other reasons)
it has never been part of v6.
New ideas come up all the time.
We can't allow end-sites to do that kind of thing, they would all need at least 48 subnet bits as well.
This is not about changing the end-site allocation boundaries. It's about changing the "one size fits all" paradigma, which never works. 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