IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Liaison from BBF

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Mon, 09 November 2009 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8873A6863 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:53:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WJ655y43iVKw for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:53:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C503A6821 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id nA9Fs3aH027701 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id nA9Fs3Ok012830; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-MWHT-06.mw.nos.boeing.com (xch-mwht-06.mw.nos.boeing.com [134.57.113.166]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id nA9Fs2br012792 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:54:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com ([134.57.118.180]) by XCH-MWHT-06.mw.nos.boeing.com ([134.57.113.166]) with mapi; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:54:02 -0600
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:53:57 -0600
Subject: RE: Liaison from BBF
Thread-Topic: Liaison from BBF
Thread-Index: AcphUUzGM5Oz1lWVRba96y/0v5k6GQAAnOtg
Message-ID: <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE16EDA143@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD4DEDE9BC10@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.e ricsson.se><200911091500.nA9F0PSm002116@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.0911091623150.22728@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0911091623150.22728@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:53:42 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On 

> I have personal experience with managing ADSL provider. We 
> noticed approx 
> 5% of all MAC addresses were identical, I've personally seen D-link 
> NAT-boxes shipped with identical MAC addresses and a "clone PC MAC 
> address" feature in the web GUI. D-link support response is "yes, our 
> MAC-addresses are not unique enough".

I'm missing something that is probably obvious.

Doesn't the home modem, or "residential gateway," have hard-coded in it the unique IPv6 prefix for each home? If yes, then why would a home PC host not always have a unique IPv6 address, even if the MAC address might be duplicated in some other home on the broadcast domain?

And why would ND conducted inside a home go beyond the "residential gateway"?

I think I understand the problem being addressed here, but it seems to apply only if all the homes passed by the "last mile" broadcast domain is using the same IPv6 prefix.

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email