Re: v6 vs gif

["S.P.Zeidler" <spz%serpens.de@localhost>]

Hi,

mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost (der Mouse) writes:

>> Non /64 prefix lengths is contrary to du jure standard for prefixes
>> in 2000::/3.  (rfc4291 section 2.5.4)

>Oh, ouch.  That's just insane.  That certainly will be one RFC I'll be
>ignoring (well, that I'll continue to ignore).  Didn't the v6 people
>learn _anything_ from the breakdown of v4 address classes?!

Maybe they actually did the math?

There are 65536 /64 in a /48, which is supposed to be a 'site' network
handed out to everybody who asks for addresses for more than one LAN.

Using something smaller than a /64 on an ethernet is going to achieve
what, exactly? Are you in great danger of exhausting the >65000 networks?

Even if you took the smaller assignment talked about for residentials,
a /56, you still get 256 /64 and I dare you show me a network that
isn't a provider that would exhaust that in a single site.

So, enforce a /64 netmask, bad. Not use one on broadcast media, stupid.

regards,
        spz

PS: if there's going to be an IPv6 shortage it'll not be because of /64 or
longer, it's going to be because of /32 (LIR allocation) or longer.
-- 
spz%serpens.de@localhost (S.P.Zeidler)