Sorry if I misunderstood, I certainly wasn't trying to put words in your mouth (or, perhaps, letters on your screen?) It seemed like you were saying (or atleast implying) some sort of drastic loss of addressing flexibility due to the desire to break things up on nibble boundaries. My bad?
Certainly, at the purely conceptual level - More bits = more flexibility. However, I don't believe the right answer is to step into the longer-than-64-bits side of the equation. (Specifically - I believe we are about a decade too far into this game to recommend crossing that boundary, and I am pretty sure this has been discussed repeatedly during the last 15 years) I hope that clarifies my position (and it is just that - me, speaking for myself :) ). /TJ >-----Original Message----- >From: Dunn, Jeffrey H. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:08 AM >To: TJ; ipv6@ietf.org >Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes? > >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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
