Actually, I would argue IPv6 is a bit of both classfull and classless. (Moreso the latter ...)
The protocol itself, /64 "mandate" aside, certainly allows you to place arbitrary-bit-long prefix lengths - and to aggregate/summarize at any point. And /64s do not so much apply in some cases, whether 'permitted' by spec (/128) or not(/126). Thus classless. OTOH, we have policies that define how we will allocate this address space that do look eerily similar to the Classfull methods we started off with in IPv4. I too am always ... hmm, surprised isn't the right word ... when this angers|scares|confuses people. Anyway, I enjoy the conversation and hope this helps ... /TJ On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Dan White <dwh...@olp.net> wrote: > On 05/10/09 22:28 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > >> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:13:37 -0400, Dan White <dwh...@olp.net> wrote: >> >>> I don't understand. You're saying you have overlapping class boundaries >>> in your network? >>> >> >> No. What I'm saying is IPv6 is supposed to be the new, ground-breaking, >> unimaginably huge *classless* network. Yet, 2 hours into day one, a >> classful boundary has already been woven into it's DNA. Saying it's >> > > I would disagree. IPv6 is designed around class boundaries which, in my > understanding, are: > > A layer two network gets assigned a /64 > A customer gets assigned a /48 > An ISP gets assigned a /32 (unless they need more) > > classless because routing logic doesn't care is pure bull. In order for >> the most basic, fundamental, part (the magic -- holy grail -- address >> autoconfig) to function, the network has to be a minimum of /64. Even >> when the reason for that limit -- using one's MAC to form a (supposedly) >> unique address without having to consult with anything or fire off a >> single packet -- has long bit the dust; privacy extensions generate >> addresses at random and have to take steps to avoid address collisions, so >> continuing to cling to "it has to be 64bits" is infuriating. >> > > IPv6 provides you the opportunity to design your network around your layer > two needs, not limited by restrictive layer 3 subnetting needs. > > If your complaint is that all devices in a /64 are going to see IPv6 > broadcast/multicast packets from the rest of the devices in that subnet, > then don't assign 2^64 devices to that subnet. > > I still don't understand why its infuriating to you, but I can certainly > tell that it is. > > -- > Dan White > BTC Broadband > > -- /TJ
