+1. It was a big mistake to break OSI model and include L2 address (MAC) inside L3 address (IPv6). Half of the address bits were wasted. Many people are coming and coming asking that they would like too to get some bits of IPv6 address for some new protocol. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 7:37 PM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: "professional" in an IETF context Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Somebody whose email never reaches my inbox alledgedly said: How professional you are. >> > IPv6 with unnecessarily lengthy 16B addresses without valid >> > technical reasoning only to make network operations >> prohibitively >> > painful is a garbage protocol. > > Apart from its incivility, Are there anyone else who think such criticism for IPv6 as: IPv6 with unnecessarily lengthy 16B addresses without valid technical reasoning only to make network operations prohibitively painful is a garbage protocol. is not civil? Or, can we just conclude that requiring to be "civil" as demonstrated by Brian Carpenter is practically censorship not only unprofessional and uncivil but also immoral and, worse, unlawful? > this sentence is factually untrue. > It was expanded > to 16 bytes when the value of an interface identifier in addition to > a routeable prefix was considered. The fact is that there is no such idea of SIP nor IPng requirement to have "interface identifier" only to make IPv6 address purposelessly lengthy at all. > That idea was based on existing > practice in several non-IP network technologies, and on the IPng > requirements process. In other words, on technical reasoning and on > running code. As I already pointed out in the past here, having "interface identifier" is a feature inherited from XNS having running code. But, that XNS and IPv6 have running code dose not mean they are good. Masataka Ohta
