----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Bless" <roland.bl...@kit.edu> To: "David Farmer" <far...@umn.edu> Cc: "6man" <ipv6@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:08 PM
> Hi David, > > On 27.09.2011 23:28, David Farmer wrote: > > I'm warming to the idea. However if we do something like this for the > > manufacturing world we better move forward normal ULA-C for the > > The current ULA-C has the problem of allocating /48s. A manufacturer > would have to request many of them and the fixed 16-bit subnet ID > structure given in the spec isn't suitable for many of these applications. > > > enterprise guys that want ULA otherwise you will quickly burn through > > your 21 - bit OUI. It won't just be manufactures that use this form of > > For OUI exhaustion I don't agree. The currently public OUI assigned > numbers of IEEE are around 16.000. Maybe this isn't directly comparable, > but provides at least a rough estimate. FYI There was a recent post on OPSAWG from the IEEE RAC about their need to ensure that they do not run out of OUI; it was Cloud Computing that triggered their concern, but this might as well. Tom Petch > > > ULA (how about ULA-M, for ULA-Manufacturing) if it is created without a > > more standard ULA-C available for the enterprise guys. > > Yep, regards > Roland > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
