Not necessarily lots of funky services. Here's the sequence that leads to this interface ID length question.
1. RFC 2373, the precursor of RFC 3513, introduces 64-bit IIDs. Okay, seems logical. (Also reminiscent of NSAPA structure from back in ION wg days.) 2. RFC 3513 strengthens that, suggesting that the IANA assign only globally unique addresses starting in binary 001, which means by extension that these will only have 64-bit IIDs. Okay, fair enough. 3. RFC 3177 suggests that every site be assigned a /48 prefix at least. 4. I-D 3177-bis introduces the idea that wanton waste is perhaps not a good idea, and /56 prefixes would be a better idea than default /48 prefixes. 5. RFC 3041 says maybe those globally unique IIDs create a problem anyway. I come to some conclusions from this. First, if 64-bit IIDs create security problems, then one possible remedy is not to insist that all IANA assignments must use 64-bit IIDs. Second, that if all IANA assignments do not have to consist of 64-bit IIDs, the concerns of I-D 3177-bis are also alleviated. Third, that the underlying model on which RFCs 3513 and 3177 are based seems to be heavily biased to assignment of IP addresses from ISPs to businesses and residences, client-server architectures, and address autoconfiguration. But perhaps that's not going to be where the future leads, for the vast majority of IPv6 devices and applications. Perhaps we're looking at bewildering arrays of devices (sensors and actuators) embedded in all manner of sites, including mobile platforms, roadways, in individual home systems, where globally unique IIDs are not appropriate and where very large numbers of relatively small IP subnets are instead the norm. So yes, this is a different discussion perhaps, but not unrelated. It says, why are we following just this one path? Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Jorgensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:27 AM > To: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] > Re:I-DACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt > > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: > > > > Up to now, what has been investigated is what IPv6 can bring to the > > network. I think another interesting approach is to start > from a universal > > numbering space and investigate what IPv6 could bring to it > (with the > > current technology or not) and to all its constituents. May > be the way to > > understand how to deploy IPv6 faster instead of selling it slowly? > > This is a completly different discussion and IPv6 is just one of many > tools available. Problem is, are no use in trying to create > lots of funky > services if the communication wont work... and no one > (almost) want to > use time and money on getting the communication to work > without a service > using it. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
