[153457] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Wed Jun 6 17:18:11 2012
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 06:15:53 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4969C721-8B76-4221-9282-84CEFFB72D25@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen DeLong wrote:
> It is because of IEEE EUI-64 standard.
Right, so far.
> It was believed at the time of IPv6 development that EUI-48 would run out of
> numbers and IEEE had proposed going to EUI-64. While IEEE still hasn't
> quite made that change (though Firewire does appear to use EUI-64 already),
> it will likely occur prior to the EOL for IPv6.
Wrong. It is because I pointed out that IEEE1394 already use EUI-64.
> Since bits are free when designing a new protocol,
> there really was no reason to impose such limitations.
Bits are not free.
Remembering a 64 bit value human, a 128 bit value divine, which
makes IPv6 network operation hard.
Masataka Ohta
