Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
> Alex,
>
> While I agree that the use of an EUI-64 network identifier predicates a
> 64-bit prefix, I am not convinced that an EUI-64 is the best way to go.
> After all, the Ethernet MAC address is only 48 bits, so we are
> essentially "throwing away" 16 bits (assuming tha
he
> wifi part - it's hardly possible, because the IPv6 wired network on
> which I plug this AP is hardly extensible.
>
> People have already deployed many /64 Ethernet networks - they're all
> hard to extend.
>
> This is lack of extensibility, itches me,
>
> Al
take a non-sequential block ...
It's actually a bit ironic, one of IPv6's strengths is it's extensibility
:).
/TJ
>-Original Message-
>From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 12:57 PM
>To: TJ
>Cc: 'IETF IPv
ll
hard to extend.
This is lack of extensibility, itches me,
Alex
/TJ
-Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01,
2008 12:09 PM To: TJ Cc: 'IETF IPv6 Mailing List' Subject: Re: Why
would anyone want to use a 64 bit interfac
is the whole point, and if someone is making that
difficult for you that is a different conversation!
/TJ
>-Original Message-
>From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 12:09 PM
>To: TJ
>Cc: 'IETF IPv6 Mailing List'
&
TJ wrote:
I speculate that one possible reason for this was to design a SLAAC
over Ethernet that is reliable, simple, universal and
straightforward to implement.
BINGO. And those are all (IMHO) Good Things.
Well yes, they're Good Things.
In a way, I see SLAAC to have become so popular as o
>I speculate that one possible reason for this was to design a SLAAC over
>Ethernet that is reliable, simple, universal and straightforward to
>implement.
BINGO. And those are all (IMHO) Good Things.
>
>In a way, I see SLAAC to have become so popular as opposed to DHCP.
>Were DHCPv6 more develo
PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs;
Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: Re: Why would anyone want to use a 64 bit interface
identifier? (was: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit
prefixes?)
Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
[...]
> As a result of these ob
Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
[...]
As a result of these observations, I am turning the question around:
Why would anyone want to use a 64 bit interface identifier?
I speculate that one possible reason for this was to design a SLAAC over
Ethernet that is reliable, simple, universal and straightforwa
