In message <077301ca1f9d$5d6d9670$1848c350$@net>, "Ray Burkholder" writes:
Why is is necessary insist that using bits in a fashion that doesn't require that growth be predicated on requests for additional resources be considered wasteful?
Don't we still need to subnet in a reasonably small fashion in order to contain broadcasts, ill-behaved machines, and other regular discovery crap that exists on any given segment?
That is the constrained by the number of machines on the segment. It has nothing to do with the number of bits allocated to the local portion other than that number of bits has to be big enough to contain the number of machines. With IPv4 the address space is so tight that one drives the other. With IPv6 these are independent of each other.
And if we have to segment in such a fashion, the request and allocation of additional resources is a natural consequence of such containment.
But we don't. This is one of the difference between IPv4 think and IPv6 think. I can remember the discussions about whether IPv6 addressed should be 64 bits or not. One of the reasons for going to 128 bits was so that we wouldn't have to worry about being overly conservative with address at the network level. The original thinking was /80 which later changed to /64. Pack networks not hosts. Mark
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org