Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-01.txt]

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 13:50:29 +1300

Updated following comments on the previous version. This is still incomplete
and we'd like to get more comments, by email or in London

   Brian

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-01.txt
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 16:45:02 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

        Title           : Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing
        Authors         : Brian Carpenter
                          Tim Chown
                          Fernando Gont
                          Sheng Jiang
                          Alexandru Petrescu
                          Andrew Yourtchenko
	Filename        : draft-carpenter-6man-why64-01.txt
	Pages           : 20
	Date            : 2014-02-05

Abstract:
   The IPv6 unicast addressing format includes a separation between the
   prefix used to route packets to a subnet and the interface identifier
   used to specify a given interface connected to that subnet.
   Historically the interface identifier has been defined as 64 bits
   long, leaving 64 bits for the prefix.  This document discusses the
   reasons for this fixed boundary and the issues involved in treating
   it as a variable boundary.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-why64/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-6man-why64-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-carpenter-6man-why64-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Florent Fourcot <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 13:52:59 +0100

Hello,

Table 1 are Table 2 are exactly the same. Since the commentaries are not
consistent, it is probably a typo error.

Regards,

-- 
Florent Fourcot.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:34:13 +1300

> consistent, it is probably a typo error.

Fernando should really answer this, because he ran the tests,
but I don't see the problem. The results happen to be identical
for <64 or >64, and the commentaries say that too.

We could save some space by presenting only one table, I suppose.

   Brian