On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Mark Smith <i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
> I think IPv6 "CIDR" i.e. longest match rule across the whole 128 bits is > really only insurance against having to perform a whole of Internet > upgrade, similar to what had to happen when CIDR was introduced, should folk are already holding (internally) /128's for things, I suppose they could have /64's, but that means dedicating a 'LAN' to some task (anycast of a nameserver, for instance) when you really only want to use a 'host' for that. It means using a 'LAN' for each 'host' you want to anycast... or losing some flexibility in your service management/offering. moving back to 'classful' addressing isn't a move forward, or not such that it's worth the move with the additional overhead incurred. I agree that making almost all 'LAN' segments a /64 is a fine plan, some folks may choose other boundaries and in those cases will not get RA or other things, they may not need those things though. -Chris -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
