[114253] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mohacsi Janos)
Tue May 5 03:08:13 2009
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 09:07:54 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.utfdabqhtfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>, Bill Stewart <nonobvious@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart <nonobvious@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
>> so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
>> but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
>> Does anybody know why anybody thought it was a good idea
>> to put the extra bits in the middle, or for IPv6 to adopt them?
>
> "64bit MAC" -- which pretty much exists nowhere. It's a repeat of the
> mistakes from IPv4's early days: CLASSFUL ROUTING.
Blame IEEE. They claimed that for identifying network cards 64 bit ID will
be used in th future.... (Already used in IEEE 1394)
>
> I'm with you. I wish vendors and spec designers would just get over it and
> let people subnet however they want. If I want to set a network to be /96 or
> /120, I should be allowed to do so. Yes, I know autoconfig will not work --
> and I don't want it to. I can make /31 IPv4 routes -- no router I've ever
> used complained about it. (that sends 2 addresses to one place; what happens
> in the place is not the router's concern.)
I did not get any problem setting up any sunet length manually all the
systems I tested.
Best Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
