Re: Why would anyone want to use a 64 bit interface identifier?

[Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org>]

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 that the identifier is
> globally unique).  Further, we require the use of DAD, so why not just
> use a 32 bit pseudo random number generated by the device and let DAD
> take care of the possibility of address duplication?

Because in EUI-64 there should not be any clashes. (you know, like MAC
addresses they never run out ;)

What you also seem to be forgetting is this thing called
'statelessness'. And that you might want to IPv6-enable your carpet.

Also, at 2 DAD clashes most stacks stop trying and give up, tada your
whole carpet is now inaccessible...

(Might I nastily suggest that people start reading up on the history on
certain choices in the IPv6 architecture? Christian Huitema's IPv6* book
is really interesting and so is IPng* by Bradner and Mankin for even
older history).

Greets,
 Jeroen

* = http://www.amazon.com/IPv6-New-Internet-Protocol-2nd/dp/0138505055
http://www.amazon.com/IPNG-Internet-Protocol-Next-Generation/dp/B000OOKP2A
(just picking Amazon as it was the first hit in google, nothing else...)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------