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

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.

Regards,
Mark.

----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> To: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
> 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: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> 
> 
> 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
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 