Date:Wed, 28 May 2003 22:42:52 +1000
From:George Michaelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Strong admission checks into routing are going to make Joe's numbers
| less useful.
Huh? My numbers are never going anywhere near anyone's admission
I actually see a lot of value in the /56 proposal; I really like the
simplicity of creating the /56 from any MAC-48 in the network. It
accomplishes the uniqueness property without requiring central
registration, and should serve organizations up to considerable size very
well. And it readily
> Hans Kruse wrote:
> I actually see a lot of value in the /56 proposal
I will side with Brian Carpenter on this one: we have RFC3177 and I do
not see enough reasons to re-visit it at this time.
Michel.
IETF IPng Working Group
On fre, 2003-05-30 at 02:45, Hans Kruse wrote:
> I actually see a lot of value in the /56 proposal; I really like the
> simplicity of creating the /56 from any MAC-48 in the network. It
> accomplishes the uniqueness property without requiring central
> registration, and should serve organizati
Hi Benny,
Benny Amorsen wrote:
[part snipped]
By the way, I am not very fond of the MAC-address method. If we are into
misusing other registries, we could turn a phone number into hexadecimal
(including the international prefix.) 12 digits can be stored in 40
bit...
It's not that dumb an idea, it
Date:Fri, 30 May 2003 16:01:15 +1000
From:Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| It's not that dumb an idea, it reminds me of
| base-85 (RFC-1924) IPv6 addressing notation.
Which is a joke, not an idea (dumb or otherwise)...
| It certa
