Alex,
I agree with what you said, but I wanted to point out one thing:
In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape...
An ADSL IPv6 operational deployment offers a /64 prefix at home.
The DSL Forum recommendations for IPv6 are being worked on. I believe
they are based on the concept of
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
by proscribing non-64 bit
prefixes?
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote: 1. It seems rather
wasteful to assign 2^64 addresses to each link. This assignment
corresponds to. 1.8x10^19 individual end systems.
Even
if this number of systems could be attached to a link, each
speaker would only be able
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
Carpenter; Alexandru Petrescu; IETF IPv6
Mailing List; Ron Bonica; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Pasi Eronen;
Sherman, Kurt T.; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs;
Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes
[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.
is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
On 2008-10-02 02:04, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
More to the point, what would a individual household do with
Avogadro's
number worth of IPv6 addresses (2^80 = 1.2x10^24)? This seems
extremely wasteful. Further, a reasonable sized ISP with a couple
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
1. It seems rather wasteful to assign 2^64 addresses to each link.
This assignment corresponds to. 1.8x10^19 individual end systems. Even
if this number of systems could be attached to a link, each speaker
would only be able to transmit an octet every
: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
Brian,
Your point about raising the size of the address space to the fourth power
is not quite correct. If we constrain the network prefix to be 64-bits,
then, assuming that the longest routable IPv4 prefix is 24, we have only
raised
]; Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
I second Brian's points that:
1. DHCPv6, or more flexible versions of SLAAC, CGA, etc., are needed 2.
Basically, in the absence of the ability to subnet arbitrarily (on
non-64 bit boundaries), I'm at the mercy
-Original Message-
From: Brian Dickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
The problem, fundamentally, is one's position in a hierarchy (of IPv6
assignments or pd's).
In many markets, there is a (very) limited pool of ISPs (let
Stray thought - would it help alleviate this situation if the RIRs published
the allocation policies recommending the /56 as the general rule?
I would much rather support that movement (even though it would be a more
disparate effort, 5 RIRs to work with/through) than breaking the 64b
boundary as
02, 2008 8:38 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
I also tend to not favor that's the way we have always done it type
of
arguments.
In this case, however, I just see it in an operational and pragmatic
perspective -
1) I fail to see
to work ...
/TJ
-Original Message-
From: Dunn, Jeffrey H. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:00 PM
To: TJ; ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
TJ,
I understand that you do
On 2008-10-03 05:00, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
TJ,
I understand that you do not see the need to a prefix longer than 64
bits; however, my customer has an application for extended address. As
a result, there is an engineering need.
I am not sure that I see any pain for current providers or
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sherman, Kurt
T.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin,
Cynthia E.
Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
When managing such a scheme alongside an IPv6 prefix which
needs
.; Alexandru Petrescu; IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Ron
Bonica; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Pasi Eronen; Sherman, Kurt T.;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs; Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
On Tue, 30
Pekka, I also think having that 64bit boundary helped in designing CGAs.
They're more secure when we know IIDs must be 64bit in length.
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Brian Dickson wrote:
Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
My basic question is: What basic engineering problem is solved by
Actually, you cannot just assign a /48 to each site. The RIR
H-ratio requirements may make this infeasible. Further, each
/48 (/56 for
IANA) allocations must be registered with the RIR, which is
an administrate headache. Finally, there is the issue of
reverse lookup registration for
In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape...
An ADSL IPv6 operational deployment offers a /64 prefix at
home. With that, I can't subnet _and_ use IPv6 stateless
auto-configuration.
In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape the ISP will assign
you a /48 with plenty of subnetting space.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape...
An ADSL IPv6 operational deployment offers a /64 prefix at home.
With that, I can't subnet _and_ use IPv6 stateless
auto-configuration.
In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape the ISP will assign you a
/48 with plenty
: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sherman, Kurt
T.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape...
An ADSL IPv6 operational deployment offers a /64 prefix at home.
With that, I can't subnet _and_ use IPv6 stateless auto-configuration.
In a typical IPv6 ADSL household
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape...
An ADSL IPv6 operational deployment offers a /64 prefix at home.
With that, I can't subnet _and_ use IPv6 stateless auto-configuration.
In a typical
: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape...
An ADSL IPv6 operational deployment offers a /64 prefix at home.
With that, I can't subnet _and_ use IPv6
];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; draft-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008
-Original Message- (SNIPPED FOR BREVITY))
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
If one uses a partitioning scheme like that in RFC 3531 AND require that
partitions (sets of prefixes
)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
TJ
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:01 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
-Original Message- (SNIPPED FOR BREVITY))
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
TJ,
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I never said any bits
were
lost, just that longer prefixes make logical address partitioning easier
and more flexible. Am I wrong
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
More to the point, what would a individual household do with Avogadro's number
worth of IPv6 addresses (2^80 = 1.2x10^24)? This seems extremely wasteful.
Further
PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sherman, Kurt T.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
Mike,
Actually
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Pasi Eronen; Sherman, Kurt T.;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs; Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-10-01 08:26, Brian Dickson wrote
Couple of additional comments while the v4v6coexistence meeting is on break
:) ...
It doesn't hurt to be moderate (not stingy) but it could hurt to be overly
generous when utilizing addresses. If we can plan our subnet use with
accurate technical aspects and assign according to what is a
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
In a typical WiFi Access Point landscape...
Sellers of these devices don't have a solution to program the WiFi AP
IPv6 in the same way they'd do it for IPv4. For IPv4, the AP receives
an IPv4 address on the wired Ethernet and then does NAT and
:08 PM
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Ron Bonica;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Pasi Eronen; Sherman, Kurt T.;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs;
Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
In a typical WiFi Access Point landscape...
Sellers of these devices don't have a solution
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
On 2008-10-02 02:04, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
More to the point, what would a individual household do with Avogadro's
number worth of IPv6 addresses (2^80 = 1.2x10^24)? This seems
extremely wasteful. Further, a reasonable sized ISP with a couple of
million customers would require a /28 or
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
Antonio,
So are you suggesting that we replace IPv4 NAT with IPv6 routing proxy?
I'm suggesting not relying on NAT as a crutch in your specific example.
It seems too easy to just mirror IPv4 practices onto IPv6 and not look at
how IPv6
On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:27:37 +1300, Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. We shouldn't forget that there are, objectively, 15 trillion
/48s available, so whatever religious faith people may have
in the HD ratio, there *are* plenty of /48s. The value of the
HD ratio (and the RIR
IPv6 Mailing List'
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
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
Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
My basic question is: What basic engineering problem is solved by
proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
There's one definite engineering/operational problem, for which non-64
bit prefixes are needed to solve:
Managing combined (dual-stack) IPv4 and IPv6 server
When managing such a scheme alongside an IPv6 prefix which
needs to be assigned to the same set of servers, which are
all dual-stack, the *number* of prefixes, their *relative*
numbering, and the host *addresses* within the prefixes, it
is quickly apparent that use of only /64 prefixes
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Brian Dickson wrote:
Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
My basic question is: What basic engineering problem is solved by
proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
If the non-64 prefixes had not been proscribed, we wouldn't have been
able to use the existing engineering method to develop
Jeffrey, thanks for the email, I'm trying to be concise below.
Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote: [...]
My basic question is: What basic engineering problem is solved by
proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
I don't know. But I know what problems are solved by using
longer-than-64bit prefixes, especially
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 people design a real
addressing plan for a
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
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
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
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brian Dickson
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
Being able to deploy something (IPv6) should be the central focus, not
making
50 matches
Mail list logo
