draft-yhb-6man-slaac-improvement-00

2011-03-01 Thread huabing yu
Hi. This is my draft, the link is http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yhb-6man-slaac-improvement/?include_text=1 Please give some advice.Thank you. Abstract IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration described by RFC4862 only supports 64-bit prefixes. This approach can't be deployed in the sites

Re: question about solicited node multicast addresses

2011-03-01 Thread Karl Auer
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 08:21 -0500, TJ wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 06:58, Karl Auer wrote: > This is not a satisfying theory because it appears to tie layer 3 > multicast to a specific layer 2 technology (Ethernet, with its 48-bit > MAC addresses). > > Factoring reality in to any decision typi

Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:

2011-03-01 Thread Thomas Narten
John Leslie writes: > Pekka Savola wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Thomas Narten wrote: > >>>This message starts a 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing: > >> > >>> Title : IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis > >>> Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al. > >>> Filename

Re: question about solicited node multicast addresses

2011-03-01 Thread Philip Homburg
In your letter dated Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:28:55 +1030 you wrote: >How come solicited node multicast addresses use only 24 bits of the >host's IPv6 address? It looks like there is space for many more; 64 more >at a pinch. Using more bits from the host address would decrease even >further the likeliho

RE: question about solicited node multicast addresses

2011-03-01 Thread Suresh Krishnan
Hi Karl, The solicited node multicast address is just a pre-filter. Any collision that will be detected with your proposed 32 bit solicited node multicast address will also be detected with a 24 bit solicited node multicast address. How many nodes do you expect to have on your link? Cheers Su

Re: question about solicited node multicast addresses

2011-03-01 Thread TJ
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 06:58, Karl Auer wrote: > > The only plausible theory I have is that after 8 bits of "ff" and 16 > bits of ethernet multicast prefix (0x) are factored in, there is > only room at layer 2 for 24 more bits, so there is no point having more > bits in layer 3. This is not a

question about solicited node multicast addresses

2011-03-01 Thread Karl Auer
How come solicited node multicast addresses use only 24 bits of the host's IPv6 address? It looks like there is space for many more; 64 more at a pinch. Using more bits from the host address would decrease even further the likelihood of two nodes sharing the same SNM address. See RFC 4291, section