At 01:29 PM 1/14/2013, Russell Coker wrote: >You can use a smart switch or a Linux box running bridging to >enforce any form >of firewall controls on different parts of the same subnet. So why >is there a >need for different subnets?
That would likely be an easier solution to manage too. >It's a poor design to have the minimum subnet be 2^64 addresses though. 2^48 >addresses for all Ethernet devices in the world hasn't turned out to be any >sort of problem and it's only recently that 2^32 IP addresses for the entire >world became a problem (and things still work reasonably well even though >almost no-one is IPv6 only). I agree, I know the idea was so host addresses could be hashed from MAC addresses, but writing the RFCs in a way to preclude the use of smaller subnets does seem short sighted to me, especially since there are mechanisms that can be used to manage IP addresses in a smaller subnet. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
