My pleasure, and thanks for taking part - this is supposed to be an active community, gathering consensus, etc. The more the merrier!
> Well of course, one wouldn't dare suggest changing such deeply entrenched std and implementation, bar the deployed base. I think some are doing just that, and while I welcome the conversation I really hope we (collectively) do not go down that path. > "yet it's hard to extend a common IPv6 subnet" I'm sorry, extend in what fashion? You mean in order to have 2 (or, "n") subnets? ... see next comment: > "or one needs to be allocated a shorter than /64 prefix (e.g. be allocated a /56). These are rare" They are? I must have missed that memo! (Sorry, don't mean to be overly flippant) Seriously, last time I checked I could get up to a /48 (or, atleast a /56) fairly readily ... that is the whole point, and if someone is making that difficult for you that is a different conversation! /TJ >-----Original Message----- >From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 12:09 PM >To: TJ >Cc: 'IETF IPv6 Mailing List' >Subject: Re: Why would anyone want to use a 64 bit interface identifier? > >TJ wrote: >>> I speculate that one possible reason for this was to design a SLAAC >>> over Ethernet that is reliable, simple, universal and straightforward >>> to implement. >> >> BINGO. And those are all (IMHO) Good Things. > >Well yes, they're Good Things. > >>> In a way, I see SLAAC to have become so popular as opposed to DHCP. >>> Were DHCPv6 more developed we wouldn't have this IID-64bit problem, >>> I >> think. >> >> We could debate how "popular" SLAAC is (many of those arguments, both >> pro and con, are environment / deployment specific), but more relevant >> - some DHCP implementations also assume a 64b IID. > >I think I agree. > >> Which aspect is the cart and which is the horse could also be debated, >> but the real point is - again - that this assumption has been baked-in >> to so many things that changing it is (yes, still IMHO) a Bad Thing. > >Well of course, one wouldn't dare suggest changing such deeply entrenched >std and implementation, bar the deployed base. > >However, one can't stop oneself express the strong frustration felt about >extending an IPv6 network. With all the great SLAAC features and software >availability - yet it's hard to extend a common IPv6 subnet: >one needs DHCPv6 prefix delegation be in place, or one needs to be allocated >a shorter than /64 prefix (e.g. be allocated a /56). These are rare. > >Thanks for the message, I'll go in listening mode :-) > >Alex > >______________________________________________________________________ >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 [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
