ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents?

[Antonio Querubin]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote:

> ...and you're willing to diagnose odd errors, sometimes.  (I've actually
> met people who have received two Ethernet cards with the same MAC
> address.)

Sometimes?  Try supporting tens of thousands of customers and subnets
sometime.

> > But in the long run we cannot build network infrastructure on 
> > the assumption that "linklayer technology never changes".
> 
> > Just think of ATM. It uses no IEEE adresses. One have to create
> > one, (and how do i create a unique ?) same goes for ppp links,
> > Frame-delay links, mobile UTMS phones etc.
> 
> > This is one of the design "features" of ipv6 that prevents deplayment.
> 
> I disagree.  There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone who finds the
> automatic mechanism to be too confusing from using addresses that don't
> have anything to do with IEEE anything.  They still work just fine, and

It's not confusing.  It actually makes sense if you want to take advantage
of what it offers.  But as mentioned in a previous reply "where's the
beef?"

> anyone can use them, if they choose.  What's holding back IPv6 is this:  
> No commonly-available routing equipment, no commonly-available remote
> access equipment, and no commonly-available end user software.

Ah, acceptance of reality I see.  That's a good thing :)

If you think of the adoption of IPv6 as World War II with many
hurdles/goals/missions to accomplish in order to win the war and then view
MAC-based addressing as one of those goals, you may understand why I think
MAC-based addressing might be 'A Bridge Too Far'.  Eventually we'll get
there but it may be a long long while.  

The widespread adoption of IPv6 will require its acceptance by network
service providers who are willing to integrate it into their network.
They'll take the path of least resistance and anything that adds
significant complexity or work wont be easily accepted.