Hi all,
Xu Xiaohu wrote (in the Behave discussion thread) :
My question is: Should the IPv4-embeded IPv6 address still be in
accordance with the specification defined in RFC4291 as "...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..."?
If the answer is yes, why?
+1 in favor of this question being answered by those who know the history.
(This question is a recurring one, AFAIK not answered so far.)
(In other words, is there any practical meaning/usage for that
constraint in the IPv4/IPv6 translation process?)
If no reason for the current constraint is reported, the real constraint
could be weaker, becoming for example:
"...For all unicast addresses other than those that start with the
binary value 000, and that are used as destinations on IPv6 links having
/64 subnet prefixes, Interface IDs are required to be constructed in
Modified EUI-64 format."
To be complete, it could be added that:
"If new formats are defined in the future for such Interface IDs, they
should be distinguishable from the Modified EUI-64 format, i.e. should
have their two lower bits of the first octet both set to 1"
NOTE: IPv4-translatable and IPv4-converted IPv6 address formats are
being defined in conformance with the Modified EUI-64 format constraint.
*This doesn't need to change.*
(Even if not technically necessary, this conformance permits to freeze
the specification, which is urgent, without waiting for the above
question to be resolved.)
Regards,
RD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
