From: Mark Andrews (no email)
Date: Thu Jan 03 2008 - 19:22:06 EST
In article <> you write:
>
>> > I'd rather push for /48 and have people settle on /56 than push for=20
>> > /56 and have people settle on /64.
>>=20
>> Again, why the hang-up on 8 bit boundaries?
>
>Look, why are we arguing about this? Why not split
>the difference? If /48 is too big and /64 is too small,
>let's go halfway and use /56, OK?
>
>This has the advantage that it is on a 4 bit nibble=20
>boundary which makes it the boundary between network
>and interface much clearer in writing
>2001:3ff3:effe:1200::0/56=20
>If you wrote 2001:3ff3:effe:12a0::0/56 then I would=20
>immediately see that there are too many bits in the network
>portion. It also avoids a messy situation with reverse
>DNS delegations.
And /48 is easier still.
2001:3ff3:effe:1234:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx
<--ASSIGNED-->:<ME>:<------auto------->
>In the end, the decision had to be made to but the boundary
>somewhere, and with 16 bits to be divided plus the need to
>use 4-bit boundaries, the choices were (4,12), (8,8), and
>(12,4). Split the difference was the least objectionable.
>
>ARIN's decision on this boundary point has since been accepted
>by two other RIRs, so it seems to be community consensus now.
>
>--Michael Dillon
|
|
|