ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re[6]: national security

2003-11-28 12:34:05
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:

Ah, I see what you mean now. However, the devision is a done deal as
RFC 3513 mandates that all unicast IPv6 addresses except the ones 
starting with the bits 000 must have a 64-bit interface identifier in 
the lower 64 bits. This has some important advantages, most notably it
allows stateless autoconfiguration. (However, this could have been done
with 48 bits too.) But it does have the downside you mention by only 
leaving 64 bits for numbering subnets. The practice of giving all sites
a /48 further deminishes the available bits.

Wow ... it's even worse than I thought!  Why bother even going to IPv6?

So we've quadrupled our address space (in bits) for a 50% gain ...

A 50% gain in what?

Has it occurred to anyone that allocating entire bit ranges in advance
is a bit presumptuous, since nobody really has any idea how addresses
will be used decades from now?

In this proposal we use 16 bits to allocate a /32 to regions
with 250 - 500 thousand inhabitants, so there is no fixed boundary
for the country number.

See above.  It's a mistake, and time will prove this.





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>