Subject: Re: Draft: PI addressing derived from AS numbers

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 05:27:53 +0859 ()

Brian;

> > > So what I'm getting from this discussion is that 8+8 is too late but
> > > 16+16 is too large???  I would agree that 16+16 is too large.  How
> > > about 4+16?
> > >
> > 
> > I am still curious as to why people think that 16+16 would be any
> > different to 8+8.
> 
> Because, like 4+16, it can coexist with plain 16. Whether people like
> it or not, the product investments in RFC 2460 at this point oblige
> any plausible solution to behave as an upgrade to plain 16.

No problem.

First, it is not RFC2460 but RFC2373.

When I proposed to modify IPv6 addressing architecuture from 10+6
(with 48 bit MAC) to 8+8 (with 64 bit MAC, the current one in
RFC2373), I have been carefully watching that universal/local and
individual/group bits are not overridden.

Thus, it is OK to give special meaning on local group MAC addresses.

When both source and destinaiton addresses looks like local group
MAC address, IP, TCP and other stacks should behave diffferently
from leagacy ones.

People who still need local addresses should be careful not to make
it a group address, which is a trivial local administration issue.

62 bits are enough for globally unique reverse lookup.

That's all.

					Masataka Ohta