On 30 Nov 2011, at 23:02, Bill Stewart wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Mark Blackman <m...@exonetric.com> wrote: >> ... and I'm not sure why SLAAC wanted more than 48 bits. > > One reason IPv6 addresses are 128 bits long instead of 40, 48, 64 or > 80 is because converting from IPv4 to IPv6 is really painful and we > don't want to ever have to do it again in the future.
Sure, 128 bits I can see the point of. Rigid insistence on /64 subnets when no broadcast domain will ever have 2^64 devices on it seems like a less obvious choice. - Mark
