At 04:45 PM 4/30/02, Michael L. Williams wrote: >I'm sure I'm missing something and I need to read and learn more about IPv6 >(when's your book coming out? =)...
July. The publisher is slow. The book won't cover IPv6 in detail though. Although it might seem like I'm a big proponent of it, I'm not really sure it will catch on. > however, it seems in an attempt to make >addressing a convenience (where it doesn't take skill to understand and do >it), there will be wasted space...... So? 128 bits is a lot of bits. In fact, there's more waste than you may realize. In a number of the formats, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in IEEE EUI-64 format. EUI-64 based Interface identifiers may have global scope when a global token is available (e.g., IEEE 48-bit MAC) or may have local scope where a global token is not available (e.g., serial links, tunnel end-points, etc.) Regarding IPv6 autoconfiguration addresses, I'm no expert. You'll want to read the RFCs to answer those questions. But I think your fears about summarization are unfounded. RFC 2723 says this: "IPv6 unicast addresses are aggregatable with contiguous bit-wise masks similar to IPv4 addresses under Class-less Interdomain Routing [CIDR]." >The only people that want >"auto-addressing", IMHO, want it out of laziness... People don't want autoconfiguration because of laziness. They want it because sometimes there's no network administrator available and maybe there never was one available (to set up a server, for example). Take the typical kitchen, laundry room (your washing machine may have a L3 address some day), car, space station, hotel lobby, Starbucks, park, real-estate office, many other small offices, etc. You made fun of AppleTalk, but there is an IETF movement afoot to standardize user-friendliness, autoconfiguration, and many other AppleTalk themes. See the work of the Zero Configuration Networking working group here: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/zeroconf-charter.html Priscilla > I mean, technologies >like DHCP can handle dynamic assignment of addrs from a given scope, so why >concentrate on fixing something that's not broken. Why bother wasting time >with "convenience" of auto-addressing and just fix what's wrong with our >system now (i.e. it's 32-bit which the 128-bit will fix, and the fact that >IPs weren't handed out in a way that was condusive to summarization, which >can be fixed when they start handing out IPv6 addrs).... > >Mike W. ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42934&t=42913 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
