Recent searches
Search options
@nygren@hachyderm.ioRelaying from a coworker:
"Quick poll: which is the larger #IPv6 prefix? 2001:db8::/32 or 2001:db8:1234::/48? Don't discuss, don't look for an official definition, just vote by responding"
@nygren prefix or subnet?
@nygren was unsure if "larger" meant longer prefix or more addresses, assumed the latter
@ricci Personally I also use "longer" or "shorter" as I agree that otherwise it's ambiguous based on your context.
@nygren is there a catch?
@nygren The usage I've seen and used is:
Longer prefix: fewer addresses
Shorter prefix: more addresses
Larger/bigger prefix: more addresses
Smaller prefix: fewer addresses
No doubt this gets more confusing in languages that don't distinguish larger vs longer vs bigger. I personally avoid using the longer/shorter prefix terminology, because I'd rather be inuring folks to CIDR and subnet sizes, since that will serve them for #IPv6 and Legacy IP equally.
Hence, I prefer only larger/smaller.
@nygren I‘d say /32 is a shorter and therefore larger prefix.
@nygren Prefixes can be long or short, subnets small or large.
And priorities can be high or low, while their priority level can have a small or large numeric value.
So confusing when mixed up.
@chrysn @nygren We have the same problem with biking: does shifting "up" mean a larger chainring on the back (which makes pedaling easier (faster)) or a smaller chainring on the back (making pedaling harder (slower)). Fortunately, we have a solution: "shift to easier gear" and the rider presses the appropriate lever on their bike.
It is a shame we haven't moved to similar language with most of our bits and bytes!
