Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:14:25 -0500
Marshall Eubanks <tmemulticasttech.com>
wrote:

> 
> On Dec 27, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:57:45 +0900
> > Randy Bush <randypsg.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Ever calculated how many Ethernet nodes
you can attach to a  
> >>> single LAN
> >>> with 2^46 unicast addresses?
> >>
> >> you mean operationally successfully, or just
for marketing glossies?
> >>
> >
> > Theoretically. What I find a bit hard to
understand is peoples'
> > seemingly complete acceptance of the 'gross'
amount of ethernet  
> > address
> > space there is available with 46 bits available
for unicast addressing
> > on a single LAN segment, yet confusion and
struggle over the  
> > allocation
> > of additional IPv6 bits addressing bits for the
same purpose - the
> > operational convenience of having addressing
"work out of the box" or
> > be simpler to understand and easier to work with.
> >
> > Once I realised that IPv6's fixed sized node
addressing model was
> > similar to Ethernet's, I then started wondering
why Ethernet was like
> > it was - and then found a paper that explains it
:
> >
> > "48-bit Absolute Internet and Ethernet Host
Numbers"
> > http://ethernethistory.typepad.com/papers/HostNumbers.p
df
> >
> 
> Would it be possible to find the even part of this
paper ? This  
> version only has the odd numbered pages.
> 

Hmm, you're right. The version I originally read was from
somewhere
else, and that was complete. I figured this one was more
"original" as
it's on one of the papers author's websites, so I've
remembered that
one, and even deleted my original electronic copy for this
one. I'll try to find
the other copy.

Regards,
Mark.

-- 

        "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must
remain constantly
         alert."
                                   - Bruce Schneier,
"Beyond Fear"