On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com<mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: Yes. A fine engineering solution for demonstration purposes, but not a good solution for us to recommend for deployment in the long term. Because it commits wide prefixes to sub-delegations, it wastes address space profligately, and likely would require a /48 for a fairly trivial subnetted homenet. You say that as if it would be a bad thing. I don't see a problem with it.
IIRC, what started this conversation was the claim that wasting bits on semantic identifiers was bad because it wasted address space. If you don't think wasting address space is a problem, why are we even having this debate?
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
