Re: (sipp) E.164 mapping into IPv6

[William Allen Simpson <[e-mail]>]

> From: [e-mail]
> I guess i don't quite understand why there needs to be code in the higher
> order bits (1, 2, whatever) that says "this is an E.164 address; *that* is
> an 802 address".  You don't need to know "far away", as far as i can tell;
> up close (i.e., the last hop router), you *know* what kind of "wire" it is.
>
Dave says that if you "know" which kind of wire you have, you don't need
the family bits.  But, I think he's wrong about how often you "know" the
kind of wire.

For example, a NAS with 16 ports -- some dialed, some hardwired -- might
have some nodes that self-assign using an IEEE from another card, and
others that self-assign using the dialed number.  So, although they will
all "appear" on the same subnet, they will have different families,
depending on the implementation.  So, we really need separate families.

The same problem occurs for partial mesh nets, such as Frame Relay or
even X.25.  It was suggested some time ago that we should add an X.121
family, despite the fact that you can "escape" from E.164 to X.121.


> What i *do* think we need is something that says "here is how stateless
> configuratin works on E.164; here is how it works on 802".  And, same
> words, more or less, for "ad hoc" case.
>
Maybe.  But I think that actually they will work pretty much the same.

[e-mail]
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF SIPP Working Group - Archives:  parcftp.xerox.com:/pub/sipp
Unsubscribe:	unsubscribe sipp		(as message body, not subject)
Direct all administrative requests to [e-mail]