On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:02:27 -0700
Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
presume the absense of a router.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would have any need to configure an
IPv6 gateway address if you don't have a router - a gateway by another
name?
Regards,
Mark.
--bill
At 17:21 -0700 2007/09/17, Fred Baker wrote:
I'm not quite sure what point you're making.
If it's the size of the network part or the host part of an IPv6
address, as I recall the logic, the original stated requirement was
that an ipng address should be able to represent 10^12 networks (42
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 03:00:05AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that even today, we're at 0.1% of number assignment on MACs,
suggests that 48 bits is probably enough for quite some time.
This doesn't mean that MAC addresses 48 bits won't come along some day.
They're here
Bcc:
Subject: Re: What's 16 bits between friends?
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:16:04PM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
That was, and still is, the official IEEE line. IEEE 802 is very
concerned that 48 bit is not quite enough.
Let me add that IEEE1394
I had this same discussion with the DHCP working group a few weeks back.
The end result was that there should always be an IPv6 router on-link
configured to transmit RAs. They could not fathom why an IPv6 network
would not have an IPv6 router on-link. That is why there is
intentionally no DHCPv6
On 18-sep-2007, at 9:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your point is that 64 bits exceeds 48 bits, yes, but 48 bits
doesn't meet the felt need. If it's not, then where are you going
with the question?
Yes, that was where I was going, by way of the selection of EUI-64
as II.
In its current
On 18-sep-2007, at 8:02, Bill Manning wrote:
presume the absense of a router.
It almost seems like the DHCPv6 designers did...
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests:
Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:16:04PM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
That was, and still is, the official IEEE line. IEEE 802 is very
concerned that 48 bit is not quite enough.
Let me add that IEEE1394 is using 64 bit addresses - and yes, it's in
occasional
Well...I have to respectfully disagree about the reasoning behind the
decision. There is no IPv6 default router option in DHCPv6 because
that information is given to hosts in RAs. The assumption is that,
if there is a router willing to act as a default router on a link,
it's presence
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which, in turn, supports real-world use of autoconf on /80's,
I wasn't aware that there was such a huge demand for autoconf. Reading
the trade press leads me to think the opposite.
Did you not see my posting, on the results of the straw poll?
Between all auto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From what I have seen so far as responses, the counter arguments are:
- there are these wonky things that maybe a few dozen
research sites are playing with that use 64-bits for MAC
- changing the spec would require, like, actual work. Let's
just leave it alone
IMHO,
On 2007-09-19 08:26, Brian Dickson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-09-18 19:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
This becomes important when we consider non-trivial hierarchies of
allocations, such as RIR-LIR-ISP, where internally further allocations
are made for internal aggregation
Brian Dickson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-09-19 08:26, Brian Dickson wrote:
To make it clearer, let's use a reasonable example:
RIR - Big (Tier-1/2) ISP - small ISP - big enterprise -
enterprise site - enterprise LAN
If I was running a small ISP, there is no way I would
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I suggest that there are only two reasonable approaches:
1. keep things the way they are now
2. move to variable length addresses
I'm assuming that we'll be doing 1. for quite some time and move to 2.
afterwards.
The later we do 2, the less benefit there is.
14 matches
Mail list logo
