[ppml] tossed over the wall...

[Thomas Narten]

> I have to admit some confusion.  It took quite a bit of effort to rid  
> the routing systems of fixed network boundaries in IPv4 (and, in  
> fact, there are still vestiges here and there).  Is there some reason  
> that IPv6 makes dealing with variable length network masks more  
> complicated than IPv4?

For the left-most 64 address bits, no. As in absolutely not.

My comment is in the context of policy, not about
implementations/operations.

Thomas

> Thanks,
> -drc

> On Jul 14, 2005, at 12:19 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > I'm just not sure that having more than three sizes (i..e, /48, /56,
> > /64) is necessary. It may just be diminishing returns... Moving from
> > /48 to /56 for a large percentage of the allocations would reap such a
> > lot of benefit (2 orders of magnitude) that I don't know that trying
> > for more is really necessary.