[101324] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Sat Dec 29 15:16:03 2007
In-Reply-To: <20071228144946.74ef3383.nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, surfer@mauigateway.com, nanog@merit.edu
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:14:25 -0500
To: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Dec 27, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:57:45 +0900
> Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ever calculated how many Ethernet nodes you can attach to a
>>> single LAN
>>> with 2^46 unicast addresses?
>>
>> you mean operationally successfully, or just for marketing glossies?
>>
>
> Theoretically. What I find a bit hard to understand is peoples'
> seemingly complete acceptance of the 'gross' amount of ethernet
> address
> space there is available with 46 bits available for unicast addressing
> on a single LAN segment, yet confusion and struggle over the
> allocation
> of additional IPv6 bits addressing bits for the same purpose - the
> operational convenience of having addressing "work out of the box" or
> be simpler to understand and easier to work with.
>
> Once I realised that IPv6's fixed sized node addressing model was
> similar to Ethernet's, I then started wondering why Ethernet was like
> it was - and then found a paper that explains it :
>
> "48-bit Absolute Internet and Ethernet Host Numbers"
> http://ethernethistory.typepad.com/papers/HostNumbers.pdf
>
Would it be possible to find the even part of this paper ? This
version only has the odd numbered pages.
Regards
Marshall
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
> --
>
> "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain
> constantly
> alert."
> - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"
