Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >=> can I assume you didn't read draft-dupont-ipv6-imei-00.txt? > >(you should and I should have answered before :-)
> => the question is addressed to Alexandru... I guess I have read it before I suggested an improvement on the coding of decimal IMEIs into hexa. There's an email very early in the thread, but much later than your original post, ah too many emails. After this long deviation, it would be nice if we could get back to this thread's original subject on reserving bits in Interface ID's, of RFC2373, updated by draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt. Since the proposal involves so many unknowns (to me) I think it's good to be conservative, and if a new reservation happens, then reserve a quarter only. In my humble oppinion. Alex Erik: > A while back I sent an email to the list talking about > Reserving bits in RFC 2473 Interface IDs. > > Not much email has followed on this topic so it isn't clear whether > people are having too much fun debating other topics, think it is > a good/bad idea, or just don't care. > > I think our choices are: > 1. Do nothing > 2. Reserve a quarter of the IID space i.e. universal=1, group=1 becomes > explicitly reserved. > 3. Reserve half of the IID space i.e. all addresses with group=1 become > explicitly reserved. > > It would be good to try to make progress on the mailing list on this question > otherwise it's likely to appear on the agenda in the meetings next week :-) > > Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
