On Wednesday, Oct 31 2012, Brian Wall wrote:
> Microsoft says:
> "Unlike the current IPv4-based Internet, which has a mixture of both flat
> and
> hierarchical routing, the IPv6-based Internet has been designed from its
> foundation to support efficient, hierarchical addressing and routing."
>
> 8 byte addresses would provide for more than 4 billion addresses for
> each IPv4 address.
That's great, although irrelevant. From that proposed 64-bit addressing
scheme, how many bits do you suggest should be dedicated to subnets vs.
hosts? Since it will be less than 64 (obviously) and most likely 48
(since 16-bit subnet addressing already doesn't really work), what are
you recommending for stateless address auto-configuration? IPv6's SLAAC
uses EUI-64/EUI-48/MAC-48 addresses ("MAC addresses") in conjunction with
the prefix learned from Router Advertisements to generate a given host's
IPv6 address as an alternative to using a DHCP server. Does your
theoretical addressing scheme still rely on DHCP for non-static
addressing?
I don't presume to know more about internet protocol design than the
folks who designed IPv6. Perhaps they thought of a few things you or I
didn't?
>> "There are two kinds of people: Those who say to God, "Thy will be done,"
>> and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."
>> --C.S. Lewis
>
> If you are in the latter camp, I hope on election day you will
> join the "Thy will be done" camp, and vote yes on the marriage
> amendment. Children deserve to have a father and a mother.
Please keep your politics and/or religious spamming off our technical
mailing list, unless you want a purely technical conversation on the
subject.
Jima