[41] in SIPB IPv6
Re: IPv6 coordination
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Hagerty)
Sun Aug 4 16:15:19 2002
To: Noah Meyerhans <noahm@lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@mit.edu>, sipbv6@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20020802210544.GH7732@locust.lcs.mit.edu>
Reply-To: Daniel Hagerty <hag@linnaean.org>
From: Daniel Hagerty <hag@linnaean.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 16:15:08 -0400
> Besides, when the RFCs require point-to-point IPv6 links to have their
> own /64 prefix (see RFC 2373), a pTLA for MIT really doesn't seem like a
> huge allocation. When non-ISPs like Microsoft and Nokia can get a pTLA,
> I see no reason that it should be considered excessive for us to have
> one.
There are architectural up in the air questions that are
motivating the "don't use the last 64 bits for anything but host
identifiers". Some of them include autoconfiguration, and the big
argument over an 8+8 approaching to the multihoming problem (split
addresses into routing goop and host identifiers, and rewrite
protocols to work with the correct part for what they do).
If the only workable answer to multihoming ends up looking like
that, renumbering your p2p links because you were conserving a large
address space will seem foolish.
