Hi Jari, On 11-09-19 02:35 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Following up with a personal comment. > > The draft allocates an interface ID and an EUI-64 MAC identifier from the > IANA block. These are two separate, unrelated allocations. > > The main criticism in RFC 5453 for making additional interface ID allocations > is that old implementations do not know about them and may collide when > making an allocation. I'm wondering if it would be better to allocate an > interface ID that is based on the allocated EUI-64 identifier per RFC 2464? > Then we would at least use the same format as other interface IDs and a > collision would likely mean inappropriate use of the IANA EUI-64 identifiers. > Note that privacy and cryptographic addresses set the u/l bit to zero, > whereas EUI-64 interface IDs usually have it at one. Sri's draft is silent on > what kind of number should be allocated for the interface ID, perhaps some > guidance here would be useful.
This sounds like a great idea. I am not sure that IANA has a reserved EUI-64 block like you suggested, but they certainly have a ethernet address block (MAC-48). We can instruct the IANA to assign a MAC address that maps straight into the IID. e.g. 00-00-5E-00-03-00 and the IID 0200:5eff:fe00:0300 Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
