Where to buy Internet IP addresses
jgreco at ns.sol.net
Mon May 4 23:08:51 CDT 2009
> On Mon, 04 May 2009 22:29:29 -0400, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
> > EUI-64 is required for autoconfig...
> "On paper" :-) There's no technological reason why the 48bit MAC wouldn't
> be enough on it's own.
For today. But, remember, this sort of shortsightedness is what landed
us in the current IPv4 pain. Do you have anything beyond hysterical
raisins to justify not making a future-proofing change now, before IPv6
is widely deployed, and changes can be easily made?
> Tacking on an extra (fixed) 16bit value doesn't
> make it any more unique.
For ethernet, today.
> Doing so also would not add any level of
> complexity to address determination -- it's still a simple concat.
Correct. So it's trivial to do, and it future-proofs us to be able to
support EUI-64. That means that when the next great networking technology
comes about, we don't need to make invasive changes, devise transition
strategies, or wreak havoc.
> Show of hands. How many people have massive firewire based IP networks?
Who the fsck cares.
> *crickets* Right. (I've used ip1394 like twice in over a decade... a file
> transfer between a laptop and desktop.)
Yeah, that's nice. Who the fsck cares.
Most of the significant problems with IPv4 are due to people thinking
small, and not having a vision towards the future. Back when "computers"
meant something the size of a VAX 11/750 or bigger, it is easy to see
how designers didn't really have the concept that maybe someday there
would be microprocessors all around us, that we'd be walking around with
cell phones that had more computational capabilities than their entire
computer. Likewise, I am afraid to wonder what we're going to see in
another 30 years, but my bet is that it'll be networked!
So, please, please, either explain why EUI-64 is such a horrible, awful,
terrible hardship for you to endure. If it's because your Atari 400
doesn't have the cycles to keep up with EUI-64 translation at gigabit
speed, then say that. Or you can outline some other way in which it is
fundamentally a bad idea to future-proof by using the latest EUI
standard, rather than an old, dated standard.
If you don't actually have a rational explanation, then you just appear
to be a troll.
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
More information about the NANOG