TJ, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I never said any bits were "lost," just that longer prefixes make logical address partitioning easier and more flexible. Am I wrong?
Best Regards, Jeffrey Dunn Info Systems Eng., Lead MITRE Corporation. (301) 448-6965 (mobile) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TJ Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:01 AM To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes? >-----Original Message----- (SNIPPED FOR BREVITY)) >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes? > >If one uses a partitioning scheme like that in RFC 3531 AND require that >partitions (sets of prefixes) be on nibble boundaries, a /32 allocation with >a 64-bit prefix length contains only 8 partitions of 4 bits each. This >yields just 16 possible subnets per partition. If one allows a 96-bit Actually, a /64 always falls on a nibble boundary. As does a /56. Regardless of left-most, center-most or right-most allocation methodology, future scalability concerns, etc. No bits lost, yes? /TJ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
