Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 06:04:30PM +0900, Erik Kline wrote:
> IMHO having /64 as the logical unit of allocation to network leaves
> is a very good thing.
Why, exactly, except "because it was decided to be that way, many years
ago"?

(Not that I have any plans to fight that particular windmill, but /64
never made sense to me, after all the more interesting aspects of 8+8
never happened, and thus, effectively, IPv6 today is "IPv4 with longer
addresses" as far as "hosts attaching to networks" and "routing" is
concerned...) 

Wasting half the address space and then having to start arguments on
the amount of subnets available to home users ("can we give them a 
/48, or will we run out?", "can we give ISPs enough space so they can
give all their users a /48, or do we need to make this a /56?", "how
much conservation is required by ISPs?") is major silliness - something
like a /96 would have served the aspect "more machines than you can
imagine per subnet" perfectly well.  SLAAC would have been a bit more
challenging, but "use the MAC address" was not *such* a good idea 
either.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature