> So, Benny is turning it upside down - instead of asking the registry
> for a number, we tell the registry which number we'd like (and
> the registry will say no if the number is already registered).
does wonders to the routing table
Scott
---
So, Benny is turning it upside down - instead of asking the registry
for a number, we tell the registry which number we'd like (and
the registry will say no if the number is already registered).
It would work, but I don't see any particular advantage over having
the registry pick a number. It's a
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
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
> 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
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
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
On Wed, 28 May 2003 09:29:59 -0700 "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> George Michaelson wrote:
> > ...
> > > What is special about a number allocated by
> > the "blessed
> > > agency" in the case we're discussing?
> >
> > Strong admission checks into routing are going to make Joe's
> > n
George Michaelson wrote:
> ...
> > What is special about a number allocated by
> the "blessed
> > agency" in the case we're discussing?
>
> Strong admission checks into routing are going to make Joe's
> numbers less useful.
Admission checks by which authority? Remember we are talking about
pr
On Wed, 28 May 2003 19:03:14 +0700 Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date:Tue, 27 May 2003 21:56:02 +1000
> From:George Michaelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | But like I said, the current experience shows that excluding routabil
Date:Tue, 27 May 2003 21:56:02 +1000
From:George Michaelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| But like I said, the current experience shows that excluding routability
| we KNOW we can use a unitary-rooted process to divide the number field
| i
Date:Tue, 27 May 2003 13:22:23 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Yes there is. As Bob Moskowitz discovered ages ago on ANX, and others have
| discovered since, you can't operate VPNs among a set of users of Net 10
Bob Hinden wrote:
>There is a clear tradeoff between a longer ID (to allow for better random
>numbers or MAC addresses) and the size of the subnet field.
>
>Before revising the draft, I would prefer to hear from more people on these
>tradeoffs.
Although I was one of those that suggested a techni
Bob Hinden wrote:
Brian,
At 04:22 AM 5/27/2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Now, as a pragmatist, I would probably settle for a pseudo-random
and probably-unique /48, but not everybody will. I can just imagine a
phone call in which I recommend to IBM's chief network architect to use
address space th
Brian,
At 04:22 AM 5/27/2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Now, as a pragmatist, I would probably settle for a pseudo-random
and probably-unique /48, but not everybody will. I can just imagine a
phone call in which I recommend to IBM's chief network architect to use
address space that *probably* nobod
15 matches
Mail list logo
