nanog mailing list archives
Re: ISP customer assignments
From: Kevin Loch <kloch () kl net>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:12:05 -0400
Owen DeLong wrote:
Part of the reason that 128 bits was chosen (64 bits is FAR more than enough) was that it allowed for 64 bits of stateless auto-configuration (IEEE was already pushing EUI-64) within each network and still provided more than enough network numbers.
I'm sure the Really Smart People over at the IETF could have figured out a way to do auto configuration with "just" 16 bits of /112 (or a /48 of 64 bit space). It will be interesting to see if things evolve to using /112's anywayjust to escape auto configuration. I use them for router links and server subnets because it's a convenient boundary for notation.
- Kevin
Current thread:
- Re: ISP customer assignments, (continued)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Joe Greco (Oct 05)
- Message not available
- Re: ISP customer assignments Tim Chown (Oct 05)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: ISP customer assignments Chris Owen (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Dan White (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Michael Dillon (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments bmanning (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Dorn Hetzel (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments bmanning (Oct 05)
- RE: ISP customer assignments TJ (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Owen DeLong (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Kevin Loch (Oct 06)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Joe Greco (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Joel Jaeggli (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Seth Mattinen (Oct 05)
- RE: ISP customer assignments Brian Johnson (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Chuck Anderson (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments William Herrin (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Ricky Beam (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Dan White (Oct 05)