Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?

2008-10-03 Thread Alexandru Petrescu
Pekka, hi, Pekka Savola wrote: On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote: While I agree with your assertions concerning flexibility and robustness, I do not agree that 2^64 is the minimum number of nodes that should be supported on a link. Consider current IPv4 deployments. I doubt anyone

RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?

2008-10-03 Thread michael.dillon
I'm aware of several IEEE link layers and none uses 64bit addresses. IEEE tries to have them all 48bit. Even non-IEEE (like USB) tries to be 48bit. Have you ever heard of EUI-64? http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html One notable IEEE protocol which uses EUI-64 is

Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?

2008-10-03 Thread Alexandru Petrescu
Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote: Pekka, My comments are inline. Best Regards, Jeffrey Dunn Info Systems Eng., Lead MITRE Corporation. (301) 448-6965 (mobile) -Original Message- From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 3:48 AM To: Dunn, Jeffrey H. Cc:

RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?

2008-10-03 Thread Pekka Savola
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote: While I agree with your assertions concerning flexibility and robustness, I do not agree that 2^64 is the minimum number of nodes that should be supported on a link. Consider current IPv4 deployments. I doubt anyone have configured a single router

RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?

2008-10-03 Thread Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Pekka, My comments are inline. Best Regards,   Jeffrey Dunn Info Systems Eng., Lead MITRE Corporation. (301) 448-6965 (mobile) -Original Message- From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 3:48 AM To: Dunn, Jeffrey H. Cc: Brian Dickson; Brian E

Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?

2008-10-03 Thread Alexandru Petrescu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm aware of several IEEE link layers and none uses 64bit addresses. IEEE tries to have them all 48bit. Even non-IEEE (like USB) tries to be 48bit. Have you ever heard of EUI-64? http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html Well yes, good pointer.

RE: Neighbor Discovery from non-neighbors

2008-10-03 Thread Hemant Singh (shemant)
Jinmei, We have been waiting since August 20th for a reply to this one. Could you please give us an ETA on when will you reply to this one? I ask you to only reply Yes or No to adding this paragraph in the IPv6 Subnet Model draft. If the answer is No, then please also explain briefly why not?

Re: IPv6 Firewire - fffe (was: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?)

2008-10-03 Thread Alexandru Petrescu
Michael, allow me following up my own email. Re the question about implementations of IPv6 over Firewire, I wanted to refine it. I think some implementations of IPv6 over Firewire may still waste these fffe bits, still questioning the point of 64-bit EUI-64 (instead of say 48bit).

Re: IPv6 Firewire - fffe

2008-10-03 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 2008-10-04 09:04, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Michael, allow me following up my own email. Re the question about implementations of IPv6 over Firewire, I wanted to refine it. I think some implementations of IPv6 over Firewire may still waste these fffe bits, still questioning the point of

Re: Neighbor Discovery from non-neighbors

2008-10-03 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
At Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:32:19 -0400, Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the record, in private email discussions on this issue, Jinmei has been the only one who has not reached consensus with us who are myself, Wes Beebee, Erik Nordmark, Thomas Narten, and David Miles. In fact,