Colleagues, I have a question about the following language in section 2.0:
"For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in Modified EUI-64 format. " Although I do not see a MUST in this sentence, it appears that the proposed standard is mandating that all interface IDs be 64-bits long. This is not a requirement in several RFCs listed below. As a result, I believe that this requirement should be stricken from the document. RFC 2460, 5095 RFC 2463, 4443, 4884 RFC 2461, 3971, 4861 RFC 2462, 4862, 4941 RFC 3315, 3633, 3736, 4361 RFC 1981 RFC 2526, 3879, 4007, 4291 RFC 2671, 3596, 3986 RFC 3493, 3542, 3678, 4584, 5014 RFC 2740, 4552 RFC 1772, 2545, 4271, 4760 RFC 3948, 4301, 4302, 4303, 4308, 4809 RFC 4306, 4307, 4945 RFC 4213 RFC 2573, 2784, 4891 RFC 4798 RFC 3411, 3412, 3413, 3414 RFC 3289, 4022, 4087, 4113, 4292, 4293, 4295, 4807 RFC 3810, 4604 RFC 4601, 4609 RFC 2474, 2475, 2597, 2983, 3086, 3140, 3168, 3246, 3247, 3260, 3494 RFC 5072 Best Regards, Jeffrey Dunn Info Systems Eng., Lead MITRE Corporation. (301) 448-6965 (mobile) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 12:54 PM To: IETF-Announce Cc: 6man chair; Internet Architecture Board; 6man mailing list; RFC Editor Subject: Protocol Action: 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers' to Proposed Standard The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers ' <draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Mark Townsley. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-03.tx t Technical Summary Interface Identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to identify interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique within a subnet. Several RFCs have specified interface identifiers or identifier ranges that have a special meaning attached to them. An IPv6 node autoconfiguring an interface identifier in these ranges will encounter unexpected consequences. Since there is no centralized repository for such reserved identifiers, this document aims to create one. Working Group Summary The 6MAN working group has done extensive reviews of this document and it reflects the consensus of the working group. Document Quality This document has been reviewed by numerous members of the [email protected] mailing list and by the 6MAN WG chairs. Personnel Brian Haberman is the Document Shepherd, and Jari Arkko is the responsible Area Director. RFC Editor Note Make this change in Appendix A: OLD: The following RFCs that generate interface identifiers need to be updated if they wish to avoid conflicts with the reserved interface identifier ranges. NEW: Implementations of the following RFCs need to be aware of the reserved interface identifier ranges when they allocate new addresses. Future revisions of these RFCs should ensure that this is either already sufficiently clear or that the text is amended to take this into account. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
