In your previous mail you wrote:
I'm not trying to solve a problem. I'm seeking to understand why a thing
is the way it is.
=> there are two parts:
- why was it accepted? As I was involved in IPv6 design at that stage
I can answer:
* the proposal looked sane (i.e., it did what we
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
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
Suresh
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Karl Auer
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:59 AM
> To: IETF IPv6
> Subject: question about solicited node multicast addresses
>
> How come solicited node multica
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
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
