 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 have configured a single router interface with any prefix shorter than /8 (24 bits for hosts). As a result, it would seem to me to be a reasonable and conservative to assume that one might want to use an IPv6 /96 (32 bits for hosts). Regardless of that, I see no reason to constraint folks from using other numbers of bits, both more and less than 64. The bottom line is that I do not understand why folks feel the need to constrain network architects and administrators to use only 64 bit prefixes.Back then, folks felt that mapping an Ethernet MAC address (one-to-one) was a good idea. That requires 48 bits. Initially, the interface identifier part was 48 bits (RFC1884), but that was thought inadequate and it was expanded to 64, probably because other media needed more than 48 and bits were there. I don't think this design decision is worth revisiting.
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.
Alex
But no one will force you to use this numbering in your own network if you don't want to. It just might be that some protocols don't work quite as well.You're not reserving a block of 2^12 IPv4 prefixes (or addresses in degenerate case) for each VLAN-capable router interface today, so I fail to see how this argument would apply to IPv6.That is because you did not read the initial paragraph, which points out that SLAAC requires a one-to-one mapping of prefixes to links, e.g., Ethernet broadcast domains. In addition, OSPFv3 also forbids prefixes from spanning interfaces. As a result, 2^13 prefixes could be required if one wanted to be sure that all 2^13 VLAN identifiers were available to a given physical interface. This fits in with your statement about the ability to design new protocols and mechanisms to leverage address bits.I read it, and read it again. Again, I ask, how do you solve this problem with IPv4? I'm not seeing it. IPv4 has (AFAIK) the same constraints except that IPv6 has link-local addresses and you actually don't need any prefix at all unless you attach hosts to the link.
______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6 at ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------