Hi Pekka,
> I will note that the draft proposed establishing an IID registry, but
AFAICS doesn't specify that these must be excluded from
auto-configuration or other such functions. Or is such "exclude IIDs
listed in the registry" specification expected to happen in the future,
in revised protocol specifications?
Yes. This was the goal of the draft. To maintain a excluded IID list for
both autoconf and stateful conf. But many people mentioned such a
registry is not required. I am yet to be convinced.
>
> That was a main open issue I saw in the (short) draft.
>
> It would also have been useful if there had been more text to give
guidance to the designated expert on in which cases it would be OK to
accept a registration. As the draft cites 'exceptional circumstances',
maybe a higher bar (e.g., IETF consensus or Standards action) would also
be possible.
>
Sounds good. Actually, my goal was never but I thought it was too strong.
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
