[116743] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Addressing Help
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sun Aug 16 02:55:30 2009
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:24:43 +0930
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2ocqgxpc3.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>, David Freedman <david.freedman@uk.clara.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:09:00 +0900
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> > Isn't it great that we never have to worry about IPv4 style addressing
> > issues (e.g. sizing the subnet, manually configuring the addresses, or
> > having an "address configuration server" attached to the segment to
> > manage addresses) when dealing with Ethernet in the last 27 years or
> > so? Why is that, and what can we learn from that?
>
> among many other things, that autoconf sucks in significant instances
>
Presumably you're talking about duplicate addresses? If that was enough
of a problem then I think there'd be an IEEE protocol to perform
duplicate address detection and possibly recovery.
