Re: IPv6 daydreams

[David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>]

On Oct 17, 2005, at 10:39 PM, Paul Jakma wrote:
> > Wrong issue.  What I'm unhappy about is not the size of the  
> > address - you'll notice that I didn't say "make the whole address  
> > space smaller."  What I'm unhappy about is the exceedingly sparse  
> > allocation policies
> You can allocate to 100% density on the network identifier if you  
> want, right down to /64.

I believe the complaint isn't about what _can be_ done, rather what  
_is being_ done.

> The host identifier simply is indivisible, and just happens to be  
> 64bit.

I've always wondered why they made a single "address" field if the  
IPv6 architects really wanted a hard separation between the host  
identifier and the network identifer.  Making the "address" a  
contiguous set of bits seems to imply that the components of the  
"address" can be variable length.

Rgds,
-drc