Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > % If there are sound reasons to use longer prefixes in some cases, we > % may not want to have an addressing architecture that forbids it. But, > % I haven't seen anyone speak up with those reasons.
> CIDR. address conservation. Just because it looks like > an in-exaustable greenfield, does not make it so. We -WILL- > run out at some point. Presumably you have read RFC 3177. Nobody disputes that we will someday run out even of IPv6 addresses. But most believe that we have enough addresses that even if we give out lots of /48s and /64s, we aren't going to run out of addresses quickly enough to worry about this. So the idea that we need to number p2p links with longer prefixes in order to conserve addresses seems pretty silly to me. There will be very few p2p links in practice compared to end sites (which will need at least a /64 in order to do stateless addrconf). Thus, my read of your comment is that your real disagreement is with the overall /64 boundary and that you would like us to revisit a number of basic decisions with the ultimate goal of giving end sites not a /48 or /64, but something much longer. Or am I misreading your words? Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
