On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:30 39PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
>>> Thus, IPv6 was mortally wounded from the beginning.
>>
>> The history is vastly more complex than that. However, this particular
>> decision
>> was just about the last one the IPng directorate made before reporting back
>> to
>> the IETF -- virtually everything else in the basic IPv6 design had already
>> been agreed-to.
>
> I understand that, unlike 64 bit, 128 bit enables MAC based
> SLAAC with full of states, which is as fatal as addresses
> with 32 hexadecimal characters.
That decision came later. In fact, the deficiencies of relying on MACs were
discussed quite frequently in the directorate.
>
>> I don't think this was "the" wrong decision.
>
> Isn't it obvious that, with a lot more than 1% penetration of the
> Internet to the world today, we don't need address length much more
> than 32 bits?
No. I did and I do think that 64 bits was inadequate.
Why? Apart from the fact that if this transition is painful, the next
one will be well-nigh impossible, having more bits lets us find creative
ways to use the address space. Stateless autoconfig is one example,
though I realize it's controversial. ID/locator split, which I've been
a proponent of for very many years, works a lot better with more bits,
because it allows topological addressing both within and outside an
organization.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
