Christian Huitema wrote:
>
> Let's observe first that while there have been many proposal for variable
> length addresses, the length are always somehow bounded. For example, there
> will be an address length field in the packet header, and there will be some
> limited number of bits to encode
> > I can't see why IPv6 having variable length addresses would have
> > prevented people creating NAPT66 if /128s were allocated.
>
> Human hoarding instinct combined with old practices from the IPv4 days.
> You can see similar behaviour in areas where the PSTN uses fixed-length
> numbers (e.g. N
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> I'm curious as to why you think this might be the case?
>
> From what I understand, fixed length addresses were chosen for a few
> reasons (a) only CLNS had variable length addresses, verses every other
> protocol that didn't (e.g. applelalk, IPv4, IPX etc.), so there was
>
Hi Peter,
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:03:44 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >> I would not like to see IPv6 NAPT, but I see that as a real risk if
> >> network is using DHCPv6 for allocating hosts just /128 addresses but at
> >> the same time is not
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I would not like to see IPv6 NAPT, but I see that as a real risk if
network is using DHCPv6 for allocating hosts just /128 addresses but at
the same time is not willing to delegate prefixes on demand.
Agreed.
The sad part is that it's probably inevitable given the
