In your previous mail you wrote:
| IMHO the best solution is to consider the MAC-48 -> EUI-48
Is there such a thing?
=> not really but the difference between MAC-48 and EUI-48 is
more a problem of interpretation (address != identifier) than
something else.
I thought that MAC-48 and EUI-48 were
distinct (though very similar looking) number spaces.
=> The IEEE (http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/UseOfEUI.html)
is not cristal clear about this: overlap between spaces is discouraged
but not forbidden. So as the real issue is possible collisions between
EUI-64s from real EUI-48s and EUI-64s from MAC-48s using our bogus
translation rule, IMHO this is not (yet) a real issue. BTW, as they are
defined by the IEEE, we should not get real EUI-48s in an IPv6 context.
I'd suggest now just documenting the thing, perhaps reserving FFFE for
EUI-48 to EUI-64 conversion in IPv6 addresses (should this ever be
needed). IPv6 addresses don't use "true" EUI-64 anyway, they have
the U/L bit inverted. If it is OK to invert one bit, it must also
be OK to (sometimes) invert another bit... It is weird, but it
costs nothing beyond the explanation in the doc.
=> I agree...
Thanks
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
