TJ wrote:
further on the wireless interface. For IPv6, although it receives a
huge /64 IPv6 prefix on the wire it can't offer Stateless Autoconfig
on the wireless interface. This begs again for IPv6 NAT.
I'd say it begs for assigning the user a /56 or /48 routed to them on the
/64
a single use case, such as this, I would hope is
sufficient to justify non-64 bit address considerations in IETF RFCs/BCPs.
Brian Dickson
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-10-01 08:26, Brian Dickson wrote:
...
we would ideally also have corresponding IPv6 subnets that are
algorithmically derived from the IPv4 subnets.
I used to think that was a good way to design an initial
IPv6 addressing plan. But from helping
of security can do the job, from TLS to
SSH to use of
out-of-band channels.
And *this* is why I think that IPsec ought to be downgraded to SHOULD
for IPv6 node
requirements.
Brian Dickson
I can't really think of a reason why security would not be an
issue, but I could be wrong.
John
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
ULA is LOCAL.
It has nothing to do with PI.
People need address space to number the links between their SQL and
web servers. This is completely orthogonal to address space used on
the internet.
ULA is also UNIQUE.
(Well, for half of ULA, probably unique).
It
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The more that you require the other person to learn and understand, the
harder it is to convince them of something or displace a mistaken idea.
Have you read the analysis pieces on how, Powerpoint doomed the
Columbia (space shuttle)?
Jeroen Massar wrote:
[this is going to be a long and sort of whiny one, apologies in advance]
No problem - succinct and on-topic long and whiny is fine.
It's off-topic, dogmatic, or ad-hominem stuff that is not okay.
Fortunately for us all, yours is not the latter. :-)
Even if space is
(Please excuse minor formatting issues and the occasional spelling
mistake - this is version 00 of the draft.)
This I-D is the one you've all been waiting for, after the 16 bits
between friends thread.
Enjoy,
Brian Dickson
---BeginMessage---
A new version of I-D, draft-dickson-v6man-new
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Brian Dickson wrote:
james woodyatt wrote:
e.g. RFC 3041, SEND, et cetera.
For example, RFC 3041 is *very* easy to fix.
Where it uses upper 64 bits and lower 64 bits, change it to upper
(length(ii)) bits, and lower (128 - length(ii)) bits.
If the II happens to be 48
Ralph Droms wrote:
Cisco's CNR and IOS DHCPv6 servers both implement PD. The IOS DHCPv6
client implements PD, and can automatically assign /64s from a
delegated prefix to downstream interfaces.
I'm a bit confused by the above. It might be terminology, or your use of
it, but either way, it
David Conrad wrote:
And what are these benefits to the network user? Cheaper numbers
from a supply that's already astronomically large?
The RIRs, based on IETF guidelines of minimum prefix size and HD
ratio, are allocating /21s, /20s, /19s, and shorter to individual
ISPs. How many of these
james woodyatt wrote:
e.g. RFC 3041, SEND, et cetera.
For example, RFC 3041 is *very* easy to fix.
Where it uses upper 64 bits and lower 64 bits, change it to upper
(length(ii)) bits, and lower (128 - length(ii)) bits.
If the II happens to be 48 bits, the upper 48 of the MD5 become the new
Bob Hinden wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:58 PM, ext Brian Dickson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I realize this list might not represent the bulk of the deployed IPv6
networks... nonetheless, I'm curious.)
This is an informal survey of what is deployed in terms of IPv6
networks.
Do you
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
[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,
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.
The following is meant to be used for demonstration purposes.
It is meant for any and all to make reference to in discussions where
16 bits may come into play.
(I anticipate sending out something soon which does just that. ;-))
What's 16 Bits Between Friends?
In any discussion about
19 matches
Mail list logo
