RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?

["Dunn, Jeffrey H." <jdunn at mitre.org>]

TJ,

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.  I never said any bits
were "lost," just that longer prefixes make logical address
partitioning easier and more flexible.  Am I wrong?

Best Regards, 
  
Jeffrey Dunn 
Info Systems Eng., Lead 
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)


-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
TJ
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:01 AM
To: ipv6 at ietf.org
Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?

>-----Original Message-----  (SNIPPED FOR BREVITY))
>From: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
>Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit
prefixes?
>
>If one uses a partitioning scheme like that in RFC 3531 AND require
that
>partitions (sets of prefixes) be on nibble boundaries, a /32
allocation
with
>a 64-bit prefix length contains only 8 partitions of 4 bits each.
This
>yields just 16 possible subnets per partition.  If one allows a 96-bit

Actually, a /64 always falls on a nibble boundary.
As does a /56.
Regardless of left-most, center-most or right-most allocation
methodology,
future scalability concerns, etc.
No bits lost, yes?


/TJ

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------