Date:Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:43:40 -0800
From:Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
| The u bit in the current IID definition indicates whether or not the
| IID can be considered globally unique.
If that were to be true,
Yesterday, i tried to estimate what is the probability of generating a
random interface identifier that looks like a EUI-64 IID without using the
'u' bit at all calculating the worst of the cases.
Let's take the worst of the cases, that all the EUI-64 based IPv6
current devices are in the same r
> From: Alberto Escudero-Pascual <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is a quantitative and qualitative difference in reserving one
> bit for RR or CryptoIID to enhance mobile security and even handover
> performance or to reserve one bit (u) to "CLAIM" uniqueness.
Uhh.. RR bit? I've not followed mobile
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 07:33:54 +0200 (EET),
> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > And I would suggest that the same arguments still apply to multicast
>> > addresses as well. Otherwise this topic would not keep reappearing. If
>> > as you say, the arguments don't buy much for m
"Charles E. Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's exactly right, and I am suggesting that the draft
> be renamed to be "IPv6-support-for-what-exists-today".
Hi, appologies for a more than week old follow-up and this has
probably been mentioned.
Being confronted recently with the idea of
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 04:23:17PM +0100, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> For example, how about better separating IPv6-over-Ethernet rfc2464
> from the current address architecture draft of rfc2373? My precise
> suggestion would be to move EUI-64 and Modified EUI-64 from the latter
> to the former
Ignatios Souvatzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The idea is to use the same 64bit Interface Identifier (especially
> if a globally unique, e.g., derived from the EUI-64 of the node, if
> available, or the EUI-64 of one of the Ethernet devices) also for an
> interface on a different link that has
> ... it would limit home agents only to those hosts that have IPv6
> address format that mandate EUI-64 interface id. Wouldn't this prevent
> using 6to4 address as home address? It would also exlude all
> future non-EUI-64 address formats (or force everyone to use EUI-64).
Markku,
6to4 address
Pekka,
> I completely agree. Additionally, I'd like to see an
> infrastructureless solution to be used anywhere possible.
> Why? Basically because an infrastructureless solution means
> that we can make it to work with zero configuration, while
> any infrastructure necessarily needs that either
James Kempf wrote:
> The upshot of what I am saying is that I believe this is not a
> purely
> technical problem. There are sociological and business aspects
> of it that suggest a solution which leverages off the existing
> authentication/business infrastructure is likely to be more of interest
Jari,
So, this is getting a little off topic for this list, perhaps
we should move the discussion elsewhere?
Final comments below.
> However, I wouldn't like to design the Internet _just_ for
> the ISPs and the commercial providers. If I'm a small business
> or a home, I want to set-up my netwo
> Who wants an application that can work _only_ with IPv6? Nobody.
strongly disagree. IPv6 provides capabilities that simply don't
exist in IPv4 - among them the ability to provide large numbers of
stable addresses. In other words, IPv6 enables applications that
cannot be widely deployed under
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Keith Moore wrote:
> > Who wants an application that can work _only_ with IPv6? Nobody.
>
> strongly disagree. IPv6 provides capabilities that simply don't
> exist in IPv4 - among them the ability to provide large numbers of
> stable addresses. In other words, IPv6 enables
The IESG has received a request from the IP Version 6 Working Group
Working Group to consider Default Address Selection for IPv6
as a Proposed Standard.
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
[EMAIL P
[Sorry if this is not directly relevant to the
list but it must be said...]
> I think the design needs to accommodate both small networks and
> large networks, i.e. it must be scalable. I think that can be
> achieved by providing space to leverage off the existing
> authentication
=> I
Hesham,
> > I think the design needs to accommodate both small networks and
> > large networks, i.e. it must be scalable. I think that can be
> > achieved by providing space to leverage off the existing
> > authentication
>
> => In fact, the most scalable solutions will be
> achieved u
Based on the discussions on the mailing
list, some off-line discussions and
new developments, the authors of the
cellular host draft would like to
suggest a possible way forward in this
area.
Basically the suggestion is:
- The IPv6 WG will work a generic
IPv6 Node Requirements draft.
Work t
The updated agenda is attached. The changes were to remove the zero time
slot for the address selection draft because an IETF last call has been
started and to move the second IPv6 Node Requirements talk to Thursday as
was originally intended.
Bob
Hi all,
We had held "The 3rd TAHI IPv6 Interoperability test event" in january.
27 organizations had participated in this event.
The report of this event is already available.
Visit here.
http://www.tahi.org/presentation/3rd-interop/
Regards,
. Hiroshi MIYATA @ TAHI Project
-
>So, this is getting a little off topic for this list, perhaps
>we should move the discussion elsewhere?
I guess so.
>I don't want to denigate the importance of SOHO and small
>networks. Small networks are OK, but designing
>something for the Internet based on an assumed small network
>c
Hi Alexandru,
I would be a bit careful to use IMEI as Interface Identifier. I am not really sure if
this is something you want to tell the whole world. (I know that Francis has a draft
out on this topic, and no I have not read it, yet.)
For instance, when the 3GPP mechanism of address allocati
Erik, Thomas,
The chairs of the IPv6 working group, on behalf of the working group,
request that the following document be published as an Informational RFC:
Title : Recommendations for IPv6 in 3GPP Standards
Author(s) : M. Wasserman
Filename: dra
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Hiroshi MIYATA wrote:
> We had held "The 3rd TAHI IPv6 Interoperability test event" in january.
> 27 organizations had participated in this event.
>
> The report of this event is already available.
> Visit here.
> http://www.tahi.org/presentation/3rd-interop/
Where are the r
Sorry we can not disclose the test results because of NDA.
On 2002.03.15, at 16:18, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Hiroshi MIYATA wrote:
>> We had held "The 3rd TAHI IPv6 Interoperability test event" in january.
>> 27 organizations had participated in this event.
>>
>> The report of
24 matches
Mail list logo