Re: 128 bits should be enough for everyone, was: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:36:18PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> The thing that is good about IPv6 is that once you get yourself a / 
> 64, you can subdivide it yourself and still have four billion times  
> the IPv4 address space. (But you'd be giving up the autoconfiguration  
> advantages.)

I noticed that by deafult MS Vista doesn't use autoconf as per 2462, 
rather it uses a 3041-like random address.  See:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/itsolutions/network/evaluate/new_network.mspx

"Random Interface IDs for IPv6 Addresses

 To prevent address scans of IPv6 addresses based on the known company IDs of network adapter manufacturers, Windows Server "Longhorn" and Windows Vista by default generate random interface IDs for non-temporary autoconfigured IPv6 addresses, including public and link-local addresses."

That reads to me like no 2462 by default.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting.

One could envisage an option where that randomness is applied to 48 host
bits not 64.  If you really really wanted to do that.

-- 
Tim/::1



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]