> > It seems to me with the benefit of hindsight that a fundamentally better > > approach would have been to reserve many more bits in the IID, or in RA > > PIO, to create mutually exclusive subspaces per assignment mechanism or > > per class of assignment mechanism, but that train has probably left the > > station long ago, and that now assigning a huge block of space for u=1 > > g=1 exclusively for a tunnel protocol like 4rd is fundamentally unfair > > and restrictive for future assignment mechanisms. Also having addresses > > assigned without performing DAD would seem a bad move to me on any > > prefix with more than one address assignment scheme running. > > For most people, there are only two way of seting and IPv6 addresses, > either through RA/DHCPv6, or manual. In either case not many really > care about u/g bit, or know about it.
Agreed. As long as the "wrong" setting of the u/g bits has zero operational consequence, and no compelling argument has been made for why they are important - the u/g bits will continue to be ignored. Steinar Haug, AS 2116 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
