Brian, Thanks for the reply/clarification regarding RFC 2462bis.
But what about the terminology used for anycast addresses in both RFC 3513 (and RFC 3513bis)(e.g., the Subnet-Router anycast address) and RFC 2526 (e.g., the MIPv6 Home-Agents anycast address)? According to Section 2.6 in RFC 3513: ---- "Anycast addresses are allocated from the unicast address space, using any of the defined unicast address formats. Thus, anycast addresses are syntactically indistinguishable from unicast addresses". ---- So are we to assume that the following statement from Section 2.5.1 in RFC 3513 does not apply to anycast addresses? (and I understand that the statement below specifically says "unicast"): ---- For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in Modified EUI-64 format." ---- Regards, Pete -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 3:28 AM To: Barany, Pete Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Question about Interface ID length Pete, 2462bis does not contain any changes as of yet. The document exists currently to document the issues that need to be addressed. So, the point on IID length should be addressed in 2462bis at some point. Brian Barany, Pete wrote: > Hi, > > --> For the RFC 2462bis I-D there was a list of issues sent out during > Oct. 2003 and one of the issues was: > ----- > "If RFC2462 requires 64bit IFID > by several people, several times." > > So far in the RFC 2462bis I-D the answer appears to be "No" since no > changes in the I-D indicate otherwise. > ----- > > --> Referring to RFC 3513 (and now also RFC 3513bis), the following > statement is made in Section 2.5.1: > ----- > "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value > 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed > in Modified EUI-64 format." > > So here it appears that the answer to the question in RFC 2461bis should > be "Yes"? > ----- > > --> There seems to be an inconsistency here. I am concerned that this > issue may also have ramifications for other RFCs. For example, in RFC > 2526, the following statement is made in Section 2: > ----- > "For other IPv6 address types (that is, with format prefixes other than > those listed above), the interface identifier is not in EUI-64 format > and may be other than 64 bits in length; these reserved subnet anycast > addresses for such address types are constructed as follows:" > | n bits | 121-n bits | 7 bits | > +---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ > | subnet prefix | 1111111...111111 | anycast ID | > +---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ > | interface identifier field | > ----- > > --> How is this to be resolved? Thanks. > > Regards, > > Pete > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
