Subject: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-04.txt

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:53:30 -0500

I updated this document before the cutoff, but apparently had an old
Copyright date in the document and it has not yet been posted.

The document can be found at
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~narten/ietf/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-04.txt

I made only small changes, in response to some of Tony's comments.

I didn't see strong consensus for any other specific change.

Thomas

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 21:02:13 +1030

Hi Thomas,

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:53:30 -0500

> I made only small changes, in response to some of Tony's comments.

Suggested minor addition to the following in the summary, just to help
further show that bridging isn't always an alternative to
routing and multiple subnets:

"Although a /64 can (in theory) address an almost unlimited number
        of devices, sites should be given sufficient address space to be
        able to lay out subnets as appropriate, and not be forced to use
        address conservation techniques such as using bridging. Whether
        or not bridging is an appropriate choice is an end site matter."

"Although a /64 can (in theory) address an almost unlimited number
        of devices, sites should be given sufficient address space to be
        able to lay out subnets as appropriate, and not be forced to use
        address conservation techniques such as using bridging. Whether
        or not bridging is an appropriate choice is an end site matter.
        *(In some cases, bridging is not an available alternative to
        routing or subnetting, as it requires a significant level of compatibility between the
        link layer technologies being bridged. For example, it is not
        possible to bridge between Ethernet and Bluetooth.)*

Regards,
Mark.

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 09:49:19 -0700

>        possible to bridge between Ethernet and Bluetooth.)*

Firewire was the one that came to my mind.

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:57:38 -0700

</chair>

or maybe this text...

While the devices in a home can presumably be enumerated by a single  
bridged /64 address space, this is also true of very large companies.  
The arguments that prevent deploying global bridged networks for  
large companies apply in the home as well. By policy, administrators  
may choose or be required to separate functions such as telecommuter  
LANs from the home network. For network management reasons,  
Multimedia channels such a HDTV may be routed through one part of a  
network while other data is routed in another. Even if policy and  
administrative considerations did not apply, not all subnet types are  
readily bridged - consider the various networks called Ethernet as  
compared to Bluetooth or Firewire. As such, SOHO networks require the  
ability to deploy multiple subnets.

Part of my reasoning here is to state that there are solid policy,  
administrative, and technical reasons for subnetting. Part of it is  
to avoid what sounds to me like marketing language - equating 2^64  
with "an almost unlimited number of devices". The marketing folks  
will come up with imaginative enough language, we don't need to  
contribute to the hyperbole.