Dear Illjitsch,
full agreement with everything you say.
In addition please consider that engineers want to square several
informations within a single space. So to the lose of numbering space
they add rigidity wich operationnally kills still more space.
Actually there is a 32 Hexa long address space. Question 1 is how
many Hexa to protocol, how many to routing, how many to addressing
and how many to subaddressing. Question 2 are the solutions to save
space depending on the use within that ABNF without removing
operational simplicity. It seems absurd to give my mobile as many
local addresses than to a large corporation network. Question 3 is
interoperability of the various addressing spaces.
Anyone having to build a numbering plan for any kind of nomenclature
has the same problem and faces the same erroneous propositions. I
wander if someone wrote a book about that kind of experience the
world could take advantage from. The problem is that this
incertainity blocks network application needind a stable relative
numbering plans.
jfc
At 06:26 30/03/2006, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> So how big would you like addresses to be, then?
<snip>
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf