On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 04:43 -0700, David Barak wrote: > What I'm unhappy > about is the exceedingly sparse allocation policies > which mean that any enduser allocation represents a > ridiculously large number of possible hosts.
See the HD ration + proposals about sizing it down to a /56 as mentioned in my previous mail to this list. > The only > possible advantage I could see from this is the > protection against random scanning finding a user - > but new and fun worms will use whatever mechanism the > hosts use to find each other: I guarantee that the > "find a printer" function won't rely on a sequential > probe of all of the possible host addresses in a /64 > either... SDP, uPnP, DNSSD etc and most likely also using ff02::1 and other multicast tricks. The important thing here though is that you already have a local address > Also, the 64-bit addressing scheme is sized to include > the MAC address, right? Why would encoding L2 data > into L3 be a good thing? Because this gives you an automatic unique IP address. Also some L2's (firewire comes to mind) have 64 bit EUI's. > The conceptual problem that > I have had with v6 from the beginning is that it's not > trying to optimize a single layer, it's really trying > to merge several layers into one protocol. Ugh. One could, at least in theory and afaik not tried yet, run IPv6 as L2 :) Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
