Hi Francis,
Agree with you almost completely except for this
> BTW the EUI-64 stuff is a big joke:
> *no* IEEE layer 2 uses EUI-64s as addresses today (IEEE 1394 aka
> I-Link aka FireWire uses 6 bit node addresses).
I assume you meant EUI-48s. CDPD uses EUI-48s for layer 2 addresses. Don't know how
relevant CDPD is anymore though.
Regards
Suresh
-----Original Message-----
From: Francis Dupont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 12:02 PM
To: Suresh Krishnan (QB/LMC)
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: RFC 3513 EUI-48/MAC-48 confusion
In your previous mail you wrote:
You are right. This seems to be carried over from RFC
2460. For people who have been involved with IPv6 since then this
might be natural. As a new implementor this was confusing to
me. Because nobody else complained probably there is no need to
correct it? It is upto the WG to decide.
=> this is an old issue. IMHO the best solution is to consider
the MAC-48 -> EUI-48 -> EUI-64 transform in place of the direct
MAC-48 -> EUI-64 transform. BTW the EUI-64 stuff is a big joke:
*no* IEEE layer 2 uses EUI-64s as addresses today (IEEE 1394 aka
I-Link aka FireWire uses 6 bit node addresses).
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
