> My question to Paul Vixie: > > > you'll also have to cope with networks that aren't using EUI64 or for that > > matter aren't using a 64-bit netmask. > > Is this an important limitation? (I'm asking the question)
i think so, but it's a subjective matter. we're funded to do some early DHCPv6 work at the moment, showing that at least one large company in the world doesn't think stateless autoconfig is the right way to go. i think there's also reason to believe that the "/64 per LAN" ideology might be tied to the stateless autoconfig ideology. (DHCPv6 and /112's work fine.) > > you'll have to cope with hash collisions, however improbable they may be. > > Fortunately, there is no problem with that. If a given name-based address > was accidentally configured the query will be silently dropped. that sounds like a problem, to me. why isn't it a problem? > > L2 broadcast will have to work in order to support ARP. if your L2 does > > not support broadcast at all then i don't know what to suggest beyond some > > kind of distinguished destination address that operates a location > > brokerage for other services. if your L2 supports broadcast but at > > significant power cost then i suggest we revive bmanning's old DNS > > DISCOVER proposal. > > I have no problem with that. yo, bill! -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
