On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:30 39PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Steven Bellovin wrote: > >>> Thus, IPv6 was mortally wounded from the beginning. >> >> The history is vastly more complex than that. However, this particular decision >> was just about the last one the IPng directorate made before reporting back to >> the IETF -- virtually everything else in the basic IPv6 design had already >> been agreed-to. > > I understand that, unlike 64 bit, 128 bit enables MAC based > SLAAC with full of states, which is as fatal as addresses > with 32 hexadecimal characters. That decision came later. In fact, the deficiencies of relying on MACs were discussed quite frequently in the directorate. > >> I don't think this was "the" wrong decision. > > Isn't it obvious that, with a lot more than 1% penetration of the > Internet to the world today, we don't need address length much more > than 32 bits? No. I did and I do think that 64 bits was inadequate. Why? Apart from the fact that if this transition is painful, the next one will be well-nigh impossible, having more bits lets us find creative ways to use the address space. Stateless autoconfig is one example, though I realize it's controversial. ID/locator split, which I've been a proponent of for very many years, works a lot better with more bits, because it allows topological addressing both within and outside an organization. --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf