Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]

[Mark ZZZ Smith <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

----- Original Message -----

> From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> To: Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2014 6:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]
> 
> EUI-64 came first; it's used by Firewire and there was some expectation
> that Firewire would become very important, or in general that EUI-64
> would come to replace EUI-48.
> 
> But maybe someone who has Christian's book could send a paraphrase
> of his explanation.
> 

Just catching up on the list, will do so if it hasn't already been done (actually dug it up to do off-list a week or so ago, but will do it on-list now).

Regards,
Mark.


> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> On 09/01/2014 05:19, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>  Le 06/01/2014 21:51, Mark ZZZ Smith a écrit :
>>>  Hi,
>>> 
>>>  I've had a quick read through, I think this document would be quite
>>>  useful.
>>> 
>>>  One thing I think would be good to capture is a bit of the
>>>  history/rational behind the choice of 64 IID.
>>> 
>>>  I became aware of that history via Christian Huitema's "IPv6: 
> The
>>>  New Internet Protocol (2nd Edition)" book, I think it would be 
> good
>>>  if that history was a bit more widely available to explain and
>>>  justify the choice.
>> 
>>  Hi,
>> 
>>  I dont have the book handy, but I would be interested to learn about how
>>  this 64bit length came to life.  I remember some discussions of an 
> 'h'
>>  factor.
>> 
>>  I suppose IEEE's EUI-64 design history is related, maybe because
>>  triggered by same fear of address space depletion (48bit identifiers);
>>  knowing that one may see how would an EUI-128 influence in any way IPv6
>>  addressing.
>> 
>>  Alex
>> 
>>> 
>>>  Regards, Mark.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>>>  From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> To: 
> 6man
>>>>  <[e-mail]> Cc: Sent: Monday, 6 January 2014 9:07 AM 
> Subject:
>>>>  [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]
>>>> 
>>>>  Hi,
>>>> 
>>>>  A group of us put this together following a discussion some weeks
>>>>  ago on the v6ops list about the 64-bit boundary in IPv6 addresses.
>>>>   Discussion belongs in 6man, please.
>>>> 
>>>>  This draft is incomplete but we'd welcome input. Let me 
> underline
>>>>  an important comment in the introduction:
>>>> 
>>>>  _The purpose of this document is to analyse the issues around this
>>>>   question.  We make no proposal for change, but we do analyse the
>>>>  possible effects of a change._
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  Brian + co-authors
>>>> 
>>>>  -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:
>>>>  draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 13:59:17
>>>>  -0800 From: [e-mail] Reply-To:
>>>>  [e-mail] To: [e-mail]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>>>  directories.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  Title           : Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6
>>>>  Addressing Authors         : Brian Carpenter Tim Chown Fernando
>>>>  Gont Sheng Jiang Alexandru Petrescu Andrew Yourtchenko Filename :
>>>>  draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt Pages           : 14 Date :
>>>>  2014-01-05
>>>> 
>>>>  Abstract: The IPv6 unicast addressing format includes a separation
>>>>  between the prefix used to route packets to a subnet and the
>>>>  interface identifier used to specify a given interface connected
>>>>  to that subnet. Historically the interface identifier has been
>>>>  defined as 64 bits long, leaving 64 bits for the prefix.  This
>>>>  document discusses the reasons for this fixed boundary and the
>>>>  issues involved in treating it as a variable boundary.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-why64/
>>>> 
>>>>  There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>>  [e-mail] Administrative Requests:
>>>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> 
>>>> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative
>>>  Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>  [e-mail]
>>  Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>