Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: > Ah, I see what you mean now. However, the devision is a done deal as > RFC 3513 mandates that all unicast IPv6 addresses except the ones > starting with the bits 000 must have a 64-bit interface identifier in > the lower 64 bits. This has some important advantages, most notably it > allows stateless autoconfiguration. (However, this could have been done > with 48 bits too.) But it does have the downside you mention by only > leaving 64 bits for numbering subnets. The practice of giving all sites > a /48 further deminishes the available bits. Wow ... it's even worse than I thought! Why bother even going to IPv6? > So we've quadrupled our address space (in bits) for a 50% gain ... A 50% gain in what? Has it occurred to anyone that allocating entire bit ranges in advance is a bit presumptuous, since nobody really has any idea how addresses will be used decades from now? > In this proposal we use 16 bits to allocate a /32 to regions > with 250 - 500 thousand inhabitants, so there is no fixed boundary > for the country number. See above. It's a mistake, and time will prove this.