Re: [BEHAVE] Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)

To: Christian Huitema <huitema at windows.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 16:15:25 +0200
Cc: Dave Thaler <dthaler at windows.microsoft.com>, Xing Li <xing at cernet.edu.cn>, Behave WG <behave at ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6 at ietf.org>
Delivered-to: ipv6 at core3.amsl.com
In-reply-to: <6B55F0F93C3E9D45AF283313B8D342BA0437B26D at TK5EX14MBXW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <E4561B14EE2A3E4E9D478EBFB5416E1B0A2F5A at TK5EX14MBXW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <18256DC3-184D-48FE-B37C-2F9867597304 at free.fr> <E4561B14EE2A3E4E9D478EBFB5416E1B0A5745 at TK5EX14MBXW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <EB331E19-8164-4805-A412-4686D16C955F at free.fr> <4A4F5F9A.40202 at gmail.com> <268554C4-E415-492E-B950-4B9531F53CEA at free.fr> <6B55F0F93C3E9D45AF283313B8D342BA0436FB0A at TK5EX14MBXW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <4A526C57-658D-4FFE-BE74-B78A82C40E9C at free.fr> <E4561B14EE2A3E4E9D478EBFB5416E1B0C16F6 at TK5EX14MBXW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <3C634F99-C2B3-4B21-BCD8-3616037F52E2 at free.fr> <6504F50E-C15B-4233-BD5D-F917F35BB7D0 at muada.com> <6B55F0F93C3E9D45AF283313B8D342BA0437B26D at TK5EX14MBXW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

On 9 jul 2009, at 16:05, Christian Huitema wrote:

The DNS64 does not have "to stuff the IPv4 bits somewhere in theIPv6 bits." It could also use mapping tables to map the IPv4 bits toarbitrary IPv6 bits.

There are about 3.7 billion usable IPv4 addresses. Do you really wantto make a table that big, when the IPv6 host is going to exposeeverything to every IPv6 node it talks to anyway?

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [BEHAVE] Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)
  - From: Christian Huitema

References:
- Re: [BEHAVE] Modified EUI-64 format
  - From: Rémi Després
- Re: [BEHAVE] Modified EUI-64 format
  - From: Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [BEHAVE] Modified EUI-64 format
  - From: Rémi Després
- Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)
  - From: Christian Huitema
- Re: Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)
  - From: Rémi Després
- RE: Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)
  - From: Dave Thaler
- Re: Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)
  - From: Rémi Després
- Re: [BEHAVE] Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: [BEHAVE] Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)
  - From: Christian Huitema

Prev by Date: RE: [BEHAVE] Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)
Next by Date: RE: [BEHAVE] Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)
Previous by thread: RE: [BEHAVE] Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)
Next by thread: RE: [BEHAVE] Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Re: [BEHAVE] Perils of structured host identifiers (was: Modified EUI-64 format)

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.