On 27-nov-03, at 23:20, jfcm wrote:
Some others have technical implications. I would like to quote some
suggestions listed in the preparatory document, to get advices I
could quote at the meeting or in its report. Also to list the
alternative and additional suggestions some might do.
Ok, I'm
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
In the multi6 (multihoming in IPv6) working group, as one of many
proposals, we've been looking at putting a 64 bit host identifier in
the bottom 64 bits of an IPv6 address. If such a host identifier is
crypto-based (ie, a hash of a public key) then it is
Anthony,
In the multi6 (multihoming in IPv6) working group, as one of many
proposals, we've been looking at putting a 64 bit host identifier in
the bottom 64 bits of an IPv6 address. If such a host identifier is
crypto-based (ie, a hash of a public key) then it is possible to
authenticate a
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
I guess not because I have no idea what you're talking about.
There is a natural tendency to think that by dividing a 128-bit address
field into two 64-bit fields, the address space is cut in half (or
perhaps not diminished at all). However, in reality, dividing
Jari Arkko writes:
However, I do not believe these proposals consume any
more address space than, say, manual or EUI-64
based address assignment.
In order to use the full potential address space, you must devise a
scheme that allocates every single combination of bits. The simplest
scheme of
While parallel issues start being discussed and better understood at WSIS,
we have next week a meeting on Internet national security, sovereignty and
innovation capacity.
Who is we in above paragraph?
jaap
From: Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 7:52 AM
Subject: Re[2]: national security
In order to use the full potential address space, you must devise a
scheme that allocates every single combination of bits. The
simplest
See RFC 1715, November 1994, and the endless discussions that appeared
on a variety of mailing list about IPv6 addresses.
Thanks,
Donald
==
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
155 Beaver Street
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:47:41 +0100
Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(or perhaps not diminished at all). However, in reality, dividing the
field in this way may reduce the address space by a factor of as much
as nineteen orders of magnitude. Again and again, engineers make this
On 28-nov-03, at 14:47, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
I guess not because I have no idea what you're talking about.
There is a natural tendency to think that by dividing a 128-bit address
field into two 64-bit fields, the address space is cut in half (or
perhaps not diminished at all).
Ah, I see
Donald Eastlake 3rd writes:
See RFC 1715, November 1994, and the endless discussions that appeared
on a variety of mailing list about IPv6 addresses.
I guess the endless discussions didn't help, but that doesn't surprise
me.
Spencer Dawkins writes:
Well, sure. And then you do routing aggregation how?
I was describing the simplest scheme that ensures use of the entire
address space, nothing more.
I also deplore the waste of bits, and would love to hear
alternatives...
I've described alternatives before, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Exactly. And the *reason* why IPv6 has 128 bit addresses is because
the designers realized that such losses happen ...
Such losses don't just happen. They are the result of incompetent
engineering.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Exactly. And the *reason* why IPv6 has 128 bit addresses is because
the designers realized that such losses happen, and ruled out 64-bit
addresses because of that effect.
Since those losses are not significantly diminished by doubling the
address length, why bother?
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
Ah, I see what you mean now. However, the devision is a done deal as
RFC 3513 mandates that all unicast IPv6 addresses except the ones
starting with the bits 000 must have a 64-bit interface identifier in
the lower 64 bits. This has some important advantages,
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:06:26 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
33 bits
8,589,934,592 times as many addresses. At current burn rates, it will take
us some 20 years to go through the *current* free IPv4 space. And nobody's
proposed any killer app that will take millions of
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:40:53 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
a /48 further deminishes the available bits. The situation is most
notable in the case of a home user, who would get a single IPv4 address
but gets a /48 in IPv6. So we've quadrupled our address space (in bits)
for a 50%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, so a /48 has 50% more bits than a /32. On the other hand,
I've heard no *major* problems with end users getting their /32 from
their provider, and there's 65,536 more /48s. Also, remember that many
end users are getting *multiple* IP's from their provider for
In the multi6 (multihoming in IPv6) working group, as one of many
proposals, we've been looking at putting a 64 bit host identifier in
the bottom 64 bits of an IPv6 address. If such a host identifier is
crypto-based (ie, a hash of a public key) then it is possible to
authenticate a host at
At 15:20 28/11/03, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
While parallel issues start being discussed and better understood at
WSIS,
we have next week a meeting on Internet national security,
sovereignty and
innovation capacity.
Who is we in above paragraph?
Hi! Jaap,
we is a public open follow-up of
Dear Anthony,
RFC 2373 permits 6 plans. The best would be to organize them by purpose.
Not them all to do the same thing. Here we talk about national security not
about intellectual elegance.
When you are at war, you want your network to continue operating, not to
depend on a numeration
jfcm writes:
I am sure that many security officers or generals would feel unatease if
they known their HQ IPv6 address can be just one unknown bit different from
the IPv6 address of a ennemy computer.
Nah ... security officers and generals--if they are competent--don't put
their HQ computers
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:20:20 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
jfcm writes:
I am sure that many security officers or generals would feel unatease if
they known their HQ IPv6 address can be just one unknown bit different from
the IPv6 address of a ennemy computer.
Nah
At 23:20 28/11/03, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
I am sure that many security officers or generals would feel unatease if
they known their HQ IPv6 address can be just one unknown bit different from
the IPv6 address of a ennemy computer.
Nah ... security officers and generals--if they are
24 matches
Mail list logo
