Date: 12 Mar 2002 11:57:37 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I'm very curious if the suggested recommendation is really "no more
| than 64" or is it "exactly 64"?
It is currently probably exactly 64 - but there's no reason for that.
A link layer that doesn't have a use for all 64 bits shouldn't be
required to pad them for no reason (note: the "padding" done by the
ethernet layer isn't for no reason - it allows for the possible
bridging between IEEE nets that use EUI-48s and those that use EUI-64's,
and while that seems most likely very distasteful to me, so is bridging
FDDI to ethernet, and we know that's been done...)
The "no more than 64" is to make sure that standard sized address allocations
can work on all link layers.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
