RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6, future internet, hierarchy
Stephane,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: Clearly, it is not so simple. While you cannot encode *everything* even in 128 bits (billing status), it is better when you can encode at least a few things.
Yes, it is better when you *can*.
Otherwise, "serious" operators would not name their routers with sensible names like P12-0.NYKCR2.New-york.opentransit.net
This takes 296 bits, btw. It is done because it *can* be done because it's a name, and that's exactly what names have been designed for. Not IP addresses. This is not the issue anyway: We are not talking about configuring the MAC address with a structure that is meaningful; this can be done already and there are 62 bits available for that. What Gert wants is a large number of bits to make the subnet number look good, in the *subnet* bits, totally ignoring conservation. Where does this come from? Nobody does that except him, nobody does it in v4, it has never been part of v6. We can't allow end-sites to do that kind of thing, they would all need at least 48 subnet bits as well. Michel.
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
This is not the issue anyway: We are not talking about configuring the MAC address with a structure that is meaningful; this can be done already and there are 62 bits available for that. What Gert wants is a large number of bits to make the subnet number look good, in the *subnet* bits, totally ignoring conservation. Where does this come from? Nobody does that except him, nobody does it in v4, it has never been
Say again? How long are your p-t-p IPv4 subnets? - kurtis -
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
Michel Py