Jari Arkko writes: > However, I do not believe these proposals consume any > more address space than, say, manual or EUI-64 > based address assignment. In order to use the full potential address space, you must devise a scheme that allocates every single combination of bits. The simplest scheme of this kind is sequential allocation of addresses. > There's still just one address consumed per > node. It's not the number consumed; it's the number excluded from availability by the encoding of information into the address field. You might easily waste 99% of the address space in this way. > Perhaps you were thinking that the address contains a MAC field? No. I'm thinking that the address field is being divided into zones, thus wasting a tremendous amount of space. A 128-bit field contains 2^128 addresses. If you divide that into two 64-bit fields, you may get as few as 2^64*2 addresses; that's 18 million trillion times smaller than the 128-bit field.