> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I noticed that by deafult MS Vista doesn't use autoconf as
> per 2462, rather it uses a 3041-like random address. See:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/itsolutions/network/evaluate/
> new_network.mspx
This should hardly be a surprise. The inabili
Thus spake "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
However, since that time I've learned to appreciate
stateless autoconfiguration and the potential usefulness of having
the lower 64 bits of the IPv6 address as a place to carry some
limited security information (s
Thus spake "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
So how big would you like addresses to be, then?
It's not how big they are, it's how they are allocated. And they are
allocated very poorly, even recklessly, which is why they run out so
quickly. It's true tha
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:43:14 -0600, "Stephen Sprunk"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's why 85% of the address space is reserved. The /3 we are using (and
> even then only a tiny fraction thereof) will last a long, long time even
> with the most pessimistic projections. If it turns out we'
Stephen Sprunk writes:
> And sequential assignments become pointless even with 32-bit
> addresses because our routing infrastructure can't possibly handle
> the demands of such an allocation policy.
They are pointless for the reasons you state, but they are also the
only way to get 2^128 addresse
Stephen Sprunk writes:
> An IPv4/6 address is both a routing locator and an interface identifier.
And so engineers should stop saying that n bits of addressing provides
2^n addresses, because that is never true if any information is
encoded into the address. In fact, as soon as any information i
On 31-mrt-2006, at 6:11, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
You're absolutely right about the /3 business -- this was a very
deliberate design decision. So, by the way, was the decision to use
128-bit, fixed-length addresses -- we really did think about this
stuff, way back when.
I reviewed some old I
At 04:43 31/03/2006, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
If IPv6 is supposed to last 100 years, that means we have ~12.5
years to burn through each /3, most likely using progressively
stricter policies.
I suppose you want to say 16,66 years (only 5 /3 are available). This
is a way of seeing things.
This me
t: Re: 128 bits should be enough for everyone, was:
> IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re:
> StupidNAT tricks and how to stop them.)
>
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:43:14 -0600, "Stephen Sprunk"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > That&
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> And in reaction to other posts: there is no need to make the maximum
> address length unlimited, just as long as it's pretty big, such as
> ~256 bits.
But there isn't much reason to not make it unlimited, as the overhead
is very small, and specific implementations
10 matches
Mail list logo
