Where to buy Internet IP addresses
jmaimon at ttec.com
Tue May 5 07:42:31 CDT 2009
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart
>> <nonobvious at 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)
Even if that is true and doesnt require ethernet as we know it to be
forklifted which may be enough to rule it out from ever happening (see
1500 mtu for reference), address auto configuration does not require 64
bits. Its just nicer that way.
What IEEE is concerned about is global uniqueness purity.
Global uniqueness into perpetuity isnt required operationally on a lan,
its just nicer that way.
Gateway directed auto-conf enable-able on any bit length, with icmp
conflict detection seems no worse that what we have now with either
dhcpv4 or apipa.
More information about the NANOG