TJ wrote:
Funny, I interpreted Tim's statement to be another example of "Something
that will break if we change this" ... :)
This discussion goes back aways ...
January 1995 --> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1752#section-9
August 2002 --> http://osdir.com/ml/ietf.ipv6/2002-08/msg00190.html
(great comments therein!)
July 2008 -->
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-01 (things you may
step on beyond 64b)
We could also have a discussion on the inherit value in fixed length things
... like the IPv6 header itself (vs IPv4's variable length header) ...
My question would be -
Are we seeking to understand why a fixed 64b boundary was created in
the first place?
... or ...
Are we trying to modify the standard to change this?
WEll I think there's a draft that led to this discussion but I don't
think that draft tries to achieve this 64bit boundary extension. I'm
not sure what's the position of the draft with respect to this discussion.
(And if so - are we ready to actually face the world with
that statement, and to "operationalize" this?)
I'm more like wait and see what happens and if it goes the direction I
like I'm ready to jump on it.
Alex
(Obviously, my opinion on this matter (some might say bias) is clear ... but
for what I believe are good, technical reasons :) )
/TJ
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:34 AM
To: Tim Chown; ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: the IPv6 Ethernet lost bits - fffe
Tim,
That sounds more like a call to update the spec than to ignore the
additional functionality available with variable length prefixes.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim
Chown
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:48 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: the IPv6 Ethernet lost bits - fffe
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 04:36:57PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
For what it's worth,
Whenever statelessly auto-configuring an IPv6 address on Ethernet
the
10th and 11th bytes are always 'fffe', hardcoded. These are lost
bits.
The world has more devices than Ethernet. The Ethernet MAC -> EUI-64
trick (thus your lost fffe bits) is just a trick. Take firewire for
example which uses full EUI-64.
Well, Vista uses 'random' host addresses, 64-bit ones. If the spec
had been different way back when, these could equally have been 32 or
48 bits instead. But it wasn't.
--
Tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
