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
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
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:
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
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
[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.
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?
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).
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
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,
10 matches
Mail list logo