At 03:22 PM 4/30/02, Chris Charlebois wrote: >How is that different than IPX? It seems if you are going to increase the >size of the address enough to include the MAC address, assigning a unique >(whether locally or globally) become trivial. After all, MAC addresses are, >in thoery, globally unique. Then the only question is routability, which >means network information picked up from the line (as in IPX) or from a >server (in IPv6 as you seem to indicate in your post).
IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration is similar to IPX addressing, although your last statement is sort of backwards. No server is required in IPv6. The client can listen to Router Advertisements that provide a prefix. (A host can also force an immediate Router Advertisement by transmitting a Router Solicitation message to the all-routers multicast address.) With IPX, a client broadcasts a Find Network Number. A server or router must respond. >My greatest concern about IPv6 (and this is probably due to my ignorance on >the subject) is the apperent reliance on name resolution. I just think how >oftern in my line of work it is easiest and most expedicious to use the IP >address rather than the name. That isn't going to be feasible when the >address is 60 odd characters long. Am I missing something, or are the days >of 'no ip domain-lookup' soon to be a thing of the past? There are shorthand ways of specifying IPv6 addresses I think. Maybe someone else knows for sure. Priscilla ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42923&t=42913 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
