Re: (sipp) E.164 mapping into IPv6

William Allen Simpson <> Fri, 05 August 1994 04:37 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24077; 5 Aug 94 0:37 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24073; 5 Aug 94 0:37 EDT
Received: from Sun.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23680; 5 Aug 94 0:37 EDT
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag.Eng.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (sun-barr.Sun.COM) id AA10887; Thu, 4 Aug 94 21:36:18 PDT
Received: from sunroof2.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA27070; Thu, 4 Aug 94 21:36:33 PDT
Received: by sunroof2.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06347; Thu, 4 Aug 94 21:38:34 PDT
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engnews1) by sunroof2.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06341; Thu, 4 Aug 94 21:38:27 PDT
Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21230; Thu, 4 Aug 94 21:35:58 PDT
Received: from by Sun.COM (sun-barr.Sun.COM) id AA10804; Thu, 4 Aug 94 21:35:49 PDT
Received: from ( []) by ( with SMTP id AAA15946 for <>; Fri, 5 Aug 1994 00:35:46 -0400
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 94 04:03:19 GMT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: William Allen Simpson <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: (sipp) E.164 mapping into IPv6
Precedence: bulk

> From: greg_minshall@Novell.COM
> 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.
IETF SIPP Working Group - Archives:
Unsubscribe:	unsubscribe sipp		(as message body, not subject)
Direct all administrative requests to