Comments inline....
"Priscilla Oppenheimer" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.)
So? Isn't it dangerous to approach a new technology (128-bit addressing
scheme) with such a "ah, who cares if we waste.... there's so much"
attitude? I realize 128 bits is alot of bits now..... but I also remember
when 640K was alot of memory ("no one will ever need more than 640K").... I
remember when 32-bits of address space (IPv4) was considered endless, so why
bother conserving address space, etc..... and now look at where we are....
Now we have to use NAT at every turn to "reuse" 10.x.x.x and 192,168.x.x on
private and corporate LANs because "real" IPs are so scarce. Now ISPs give
you the 3rd degree, mounds of paperwork, and many times request usage
details for you to justfy that /26 they allocated to you.... These problems
could have been avoided with IPv4 with better address management and
allocation ( I mean, MIT and IBM both have their own /8s... neither
organization could dream of using all 16.7 million of those addresses....
that equals major waste)... but again, that was back when "32-bits was alot
of bits"..... so we shouldn't view 128-bits as a lot of bits.... for that
matter, IMHO, we should treat every new address as a precious commodity as
we do IPv4 addresses now......
> 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]."
So that RFC2723 is saying is that IPv6 has the ability to be aggregatable
like IPv4 under CIDR. Great... but ability to be aggregated means nothing
if the addresses are discontiguously allocated (i.e. are allocated in a
manner that isn't condusive to aggregation), as is the case with IPv4
currently. If IPv4 addresses were allocated properly, BGP routing tables
would be 4MB, not 128MB. I know you understand allocating addresses in a
manner that makes summarization possible, and you know there are ways to
assign addresses (poorly) that keeps an adminstrator from being able to
summarize. So even tho IPv4 (and IPv6) support aggregation, if allocated
improperly, the aggregation "feature" vanishes......that's all I was saying
........
> >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.
Point well taken..... My comment about laziness was off target..... As you
mention, in the future cars, toasters, washing machines, etc will be using
IP and so there needs to be a good methods for these devices to obtain an
IP..... (perhaps they could just be embedded like MACs are).......
> 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:
Hey! I wasn't making fun of AppleTalk..... just pointing out things I
thought were lame =) I can't really explain it... it's just a nagging
feeling..... oh... that's just my dog pulling on my pants leg.... =)
But, it seems to me that, even on Macs, if AppleTalk were that easy to
setup/use and administer, then why has TCP/IP pretty much crushed it (along
with IPX, etc....)? I guess my point is, ease of configuration and user
friendliness, although niceties, will always take a back seat to core
functionality and compatibility. And any sort of autoconfiguration isn't
worth the price if it autoconfigures at the expense of proper address
allocation.
Also keep in mind that the Zero Configuration Networking, no matter how well
thought out or planned, will be just like any other "Zero" anything (i.e.
Zero Effort Networking (Z.E.N. Works) ala Novell) and will be anything but
Zero configuration/effort, etc... =)
Mike W.
*** All comments above are purely my opinion ***
*** and therefore are not right or wrong.... just ***
*** my opinion..... Comments and discussion are ***
*** welcome. Opposing viewpoints are extremely ***
*** welcome. This discussion isn't a "I'm right, ***
*** you're wrong"... it's a debate and discussion ***
*** and it's fun as hell, at least to me. ***
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42944&t=42913
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
